The textual history of Old Latin Daniel from Tertullian to Lucifer [1 ed.] 8400109260, 9788400109264

Citation preview

85 KEVIN ZILVERBERG

109264

TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL •  THE FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER ISBN: 978-84-00-10926-4

9 788400

Elvira María Martín Contreras, Apéndices masoréticos. Códice M1 de la Universidad Complutense de Madrid, 2004. Emilia Fernández Tejero, Las Masoras del Libro de Génesis. Códice M1 de la Universidad Complutense de Madrid, 2004. María Josefa de Azcárraga Servert, Las Masoras del Libro de Levítico. Códice M1 de la Universidad Complutense de Madrid, 2004. Natalio Fernández Marcos, María Victoria Spottorno Díaz-Caro y José Manuel Cañas Reíllo, Índice griego-hebreo del texto Antioqueno en los Libros Históricos (2 vols.), 2005. Emma Abate, La fine del regno di Sedecia, 2008. Emilia Fernández Tejero, Las Masoras del Libro de Josué. Códice M1 de la Universidad Complutense de Madrid, 2009. Natalio Fernández Marcos, Filología bíblica y humanismo, 2012. Lourdes García Ureña, El Apocalipsis: pautas literarias de lectura, 2013. Jesús Caos Huerta Rodríguez, Exégesis bíblica en Clemente de Alejandría: uso e interpretación de las citas de los LXX (Pentateuco), 2018. Leonardo Pessoa da Silva Pinto, Different literary editions in 2 Samuel 10-12. A comparative study of the hebrew and greek textual traditions, 2019. José Francisco García Juan, La traducción latina interlineal de los LXX en la Biblia Políglota Complutense: Libro de Job, 2020. Juan Pedro Monferrer Sala, Cantar de Cantares, edición crítica y estudio de la versión árabe contenida en el códice n.º 1625 de El Escorial, 2020. Juan Antonio Ruiz Rodrigo, Desde la atalaya hermenéutica de Isaías, la función literária y teológica de Is 12 dentro del libro de Isaías, 2021.

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

This study traces the textual history of the Old Latin, or Vetus Latina, version of the Book of Daniel and its additions (Sus-Dn-Bel), from the turn of the third century in North Africa to AD 360. The work focuses on the patristic evidence, dedicating a chapter to each of the following: Tertullian, the Adversus Iudaeos attributed to him, Cyprian of Carthage, minor witnesses to Dn, and Lucifer of Cagliari in Sardinia, Italy. The fragmentary manuscript evidence and other Fathers’ citations are treated in relation to the Fathers just listed. Each chapter presents the results of text-critical analysis, which situate the Old Latin texts under consideration within the broader context of other witnesses to Old Latin and Greek scriptures. This approach allows one to recognize, for example, the increasing prominence of the Theodotionic Greek text of Sus-Dn-Bel over the Septuagintal one as the Vorlage for Latin biblical texts. Linguistic analyses inform and complement the text-critical ones. Within the entire span of Latin citations from Tertullian to Lucifer, one encounters remarkable linguistic characteristics, some morphological, many lexical, and still others syntactical.

Kevin Zilverberg (Potter County, South Dakota, USA, 1981) earned his Doctorate in Sacred Scripture from the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome, for which he won the Bibeau Award for the best doctorate among the eight defended at the Institute in 20192020. He currently serves as Assistant Professor of Sacred Scripture at Saint Paul Seminary School of Divinity, of the University of St. Thomas, in St. Paul, Minnesota, USA. Zilverberg is also the founding director of Saint Paul Seminary Press and the Institute for Catholic Theological Formation, as well as the general editor of the Catholic Theological Formation Series. His publications usually treat the Latin Bible, from the Old Latin version of Latin Christianity’s formative centuries, to the Neo-Vulgate of the twentieth. These scholarly essays emphasize textual and linguistic matters, which sometimes lead to theological and pastoral observations. Zilverberg has also coedited three books: Approaches to Greek and Latin Language, Literature and History: Kατὰ Σχολήν (Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2019); The Revelation of Your Words: The New Evangelization and the Role of the Seminary Professor of Sacred Scripture (St. Paul, MN: Saint Paul Seminary Press, 2021); and Piercing the Clouds: Lectio Divina and Preparation for Ministry (St. Paul, MN: Saint Paul Seminary Press, 2021).

Kevin Zilverberg

TEXTOS Y ESTUDIOS CARDENAL CISNEROS Últimos títulos publicados

CSIC

CONSEJO SUPERIOR DE INVESTIGACIONES CIENTÍFICAS

Cover: Daniel and Susanna, Codex Gothicus Legionensis, ca. 960 (© Museo San Isidoro de León).

85 KEVIN ZILVERBERG

109264

TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL •  THE FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER ISBN: 978-84-00-10926-4

9 788400

Elvira María Martín Contreras, Apéndices masoréticos. Códice M1 de la Universidad Complutense de Madrid, 2004. Emilia Fernández Tejero, Las Masoras del Libro de Génesis. Códice M1 de la Universidad Complutense de Madrid, 2004. María Josefa de Azcárraga Servert, Las Masoras del Libro de Levítico. Códice M1 de la Universidad Complutense de Madrid, 2004. Natalio Fernández Marcos, María Victoria Spottorno Díaz-Caro y José Manuel Cañas Reíllo, Índice griego-hebreo del texto Antioqueno en los Libros Históricos (2 vols.), 2005. Emma Abate, La fine del regno di Sedecia, 2008. Emilia Fernández Tejero, Las Masoras del Libro de Josué. Códice M1 de la Universidad Complutense de Madrid, 2009. Natalio Fernández Marcos, Filología bíblica y humanismo, 2012. Lourdes García Ureña, El Apocalipsis: pautas literarias de lectura, 2013. Jesús Caos Huerta Rodríguez, Exégesis bíblica en Clemente de Alejandría: uso e interpretación de las citas de los LXX (Pentateuco), 2018. Leonardo Pessoa da Silva Pinto, Different literary editions in 2 Samuel 10-12. A comparative study of the hebrew and greek textual traditions, 2019. José Francisco García Juan, La traducción latina interlineal de los LXX en la Biblia Políglota Complutense: Libro de Job, 2020. Juan Pedro Monferrer Sala, Cantar de Cantares, edición crítica y estudio de la versión árabe contenida en el códice n.º 1625 de El Escorial, 2020. Juan Antonio Ruiz Rodrigo, Desde la atalaya hermenéutica de Isaías, la función literária y teológica de Is 12 dentro del libro de Isaías, 2021.

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

This study traces the textual history of the Old Latin, or Vetus Latina, version of the Book of Daniel and its additions (Sus-Dn-Bel), from the turn of the third century in North Africa to AD 360. The work focuses on the patristic evidence, dedicating a chapter to each of the following: Tertullian, the Adversus Iudaeos attributed to him, Cyprian of Carthage, minor witnesses to Dn, and Lucifer of Cagliari in Sardinia, Italy. The fragmentary manuscript evidence and other Fathers’ citations are treated in relation to the Fathers just listed. Each chapter presents the results of text-critical analysis, which situate the Old Latin texts under consideration within the broader context of other witnesses to Old Latin and Greek scriptures. This approach allows one to recognize, for example, the increasing prominence of the Theodotionic Greek text of Sus-Dn-Bel over the Septuagintal one as the Vorlage for Latin biblical texts. Linguistic analyses inform and complement the text-critical ones. Within the entire span of Latin citations from Tertullian to Lucifer, one encounters remarkable linguistic characteristics, some morphological, many lexical, and still others syntactical.

Kevin Zilverberg (Potter County, South Dakota, USA, 1981) earned his Doctorate in Sacred Scripture from the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome, for which he won the Bibeau Award for the best doctorate among the eight defended at the Institute in 20192020. He currently serves as Assistant Professor of Sacred Scripture at Saint Paul Seminary School of Divinity, of the University of St. Thomas, in St. Paul, Minnesota, USA. Zilverberg is also the founding director of Saint Paul Seminary Press and the Institute for Catholic Theological Formation, as well as the general editor of the Catholic Theological Formation Series. His publications usually treat the Latin Bible, from the Old Latin version of Latin Christianity’s formative centuries, to the Neo-Vulgate of the twentieth. These scholarly essays emphasize textual and linguistic matters, which sometimes lead to theological and pastoral observations. Zilverberg has also coedited three books: Approaches to Greek and Latin Language, Literature and History: Kατὰ Σχολήν (Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2019); The Revelation of Your Words: The New Evangelization and the Role of the Seminary Professor of Sacred Scripture (St. Paul, MN: Saint Paul Seminary Press, 2021); and Piercing the Clouds: Lectio Divina and Preparation for Ministry (St. Paul, MN: Saint Paul Seminary Press, 2021).

Kevin Zilverberg

TEXTOS Y ESTUDIOS CARDENAL CISNEROS Últimos títulos publicados

CSIC

CONSEJO SUPERIOR DE INVESTIGACIONES CIENTÍFICAS

Cover: Daniel and Susanna, Codex Gothicus Legionensis, ca. 960 (© Museo San Isidoro de León).

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

COLECCIÓN DE ESTUDIOS BÍBLICOS, HEBRAICOS Y SEFARDÍES SERIE: TEXTOS Y ESTUDIOS CARDENAL CISNEROS Dirección María Ángeles Gallego, Instituto de Lenguas y Culturas del Mediterráneo y Oriente Próximo, CSIC Secretaría Olga Ruiz Morell, Universidad de Granada Comité Editorial Amparo Alba Cecilia, Universidad Complutense de Madrid y Real Academia de la Historia Asunción Blasco Martínez, Universidad de Zaragoza Carmen Caballero Navas, Universidad de Granada José Manuel Cañas Reillo, Instituto de Lenguas y Culturas del Mediterráneo y Oriente Próximo, CSIC Javier Castaño González, Instituto de Lenguas y Culturas del Mediterráneo y Oriente Próximo, CSIC Aitor García Moreno, Instituto de Lenguas y Culturas del Mediterráneo y Oriente Próximo, CSIC Mariano Gómez Aranda, Instituto de Lenguas y Culturas del Mediterráneo y Oriente Próximo, CSIC Pablo Antonio Torijano Morales, Universidad Complutense de Madrid Consejo Asesor Ram Ben Shalom, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem Ross Brann, Cornell University David Bunis, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem Cécile Dogniez, Centre Lenain-de-Tillemont, CNRS Benjamin Gampel, The Jewish Theological Seminary Geoffrey Khan, University of Cambridge Dora Mancheva, Université de Genève Moisés Orfali, Bar-Ilan University Raymond P. Scheindlin, The Jewish Theological Seminary Shlomo Sela, Bar-Ilan University Edwin Seroussi, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem Michaël N. Van der Meer, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

by

Kevin Zilverberg

CONSEJO SUPERIOR DE INVESTIGACIONES CIENTÍFICAS Madrid, 2021

Reservados todos los derechos por la legislación en materia de Propiedad Intelectual. Ni la totalidad ni parte de este libro, incluido el diseño de la cubierta, puede reproducirse, almacenarse o transmitirse en manera alguna por medio ya sea electrónico, químico, óptico, informático, de grabación o de fotocopia, sin permiso previo por escrito de la editorial. Las noticias, los asertos y las opiniones contenidos en esta obra son de la exclusiva responsabilidad del autor o autores. La editorial, por su parte, solo se hace responsable del interés científico de sus publicaciones. This volume was composed within the framework of two research projects of the Spanish National Research Council (CSIC): «Recepción, transmisión y tradición de la Biblia en griego y latín: Edición y estudio de textos» (reference FFI2014-51910-P) and «Edición y estudio de textos bíblicos y parabíblicos» (reference FFI2017-86726-P). Vidimus et approbamus ad normam Statutorum Pontificii Instituti Biblici de Urbe. Romae, die 5 mensis maii anni 2020. Prof. CAÑAS REÍLLO José Manuel – Prof. MORRISON Craig. Catálogo de publicaciones de la Administración General del Estado: https://cpage.mpr.gob.es Editorial CSIC: http://editorial.csic.es (correo: [email protected])

© CSIC © Kevin Zilverberg Imagen de cubierta: Daniel and Susanna, Codex Gothicus Legionensis, ca. 960 (© Museo San Isidoro de León). ISBN: 978-84-00-10926-4 e-ISBN: 978-84-00-10927-1 NIPO: 833-21-212-9 e-NIPO: 833-21-213-4 Depósito Legal: M-34486-2021 Maquetación, impresión y encuadernación: Raggio, S.L. Impreso en España. Printed in Spain. En esta edición se ha utilizado papel ecológico sometido a un proceso de blanqueado ECF, cuya fibra procede de bosques gestionados de forma sostenible.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1. Preliminary remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13

2. Status quaestionis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

16

3. Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1. Basic approach to material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2. Data collection, manipulation, and viewing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3. Data analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4. Text-critical analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5. Linguistic analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

20 20 21 22 22 24 26

4. The Latin evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1. Direct tradition: the manuscripts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2. Indirect tradition: patristic citations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

26 26 31

5. The Greek Vorlagen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1. The two Greek text types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2. Editions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

46 46 47

8

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 2 TERTULLIAN 1. Citing Latin or translating from Greek? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

49

2. Text-critical analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 2.1. Relation to other VL witnesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 2.2. Excursus: Plato’s Phaedo in the De anima . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 2.3. Relation to LXXo’ and LXXθ’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 3. Linguistic analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 3.1. Morphology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 3.2. Lexicon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 3.3. Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 4. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

90

CHAPTER 3 THE ADVERSUS IUDAEOS, ATTRIBUTED TO TERTULLIAN 1. Unity and authenticity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

93

2. Text-critical analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 2.1. Relation to other VL witnesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 2.2. Agreement with LXXθ’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 2.3. Agreements with Greek witnesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 3. Linguistic analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 3.1. Morphology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 3.2. Lexicon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 3.3. Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 4. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

109



TABLE OF CONTENTS 9

CHAPTER 4 CYPRIAN AND PSEUDO-CYPRIAN 1. Text-critical analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 1.1. Relation to other VL witnesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 1.2. Alignment with Greek text types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 1.3. Agreements with Greek witnesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 2. Linguistic analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 2.1. A sample text . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 2.2. Morphology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 2.3. Lexicon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 2.4. Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149 2.5. Theological intervention? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155 3. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

157

CHAPTER 5 MINOR WITNESSES TO VL DANIEL 1. The Letter of Barnabas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

161

2. Novatian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

163

3. Victorinus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

163

4. Lactantius . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

167

5. Firmicus Maternus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

168

6. Fortunatianus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

168

7. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

170

10

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 6 LUCIFER 1. Text-critical analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173 1.1. Relation to VL 176 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173 1.2. Relation to other VL witnesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185 1.3. Alignment with LXXθ’ and Greek witnesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203 2. Linguistic analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207 2.1. Sample texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208 2.2. Morphology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209 2.3. Lexicon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211 2.4. Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220 2.5. Theological intervention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225 3. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

225

CHAPTER 7 CONCLUSION 1. History of the Latin texts in relation to one another . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

227

2. History of the Latin texts in relation to the Greek ones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

229

3. History of the Latin texts’ linguistic characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

230

4. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

232

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235 Indices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245 Abbreviations and symbols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I owe a debt of gratitude to many people for supporting me during the composition of this book. First of all I would like to thank Dr. José Manuel Cañas Reíllo, my doctoral director, for his willingness to guide me and his availability for discussion. His many helpful suggestions allowed me to write a much more compelling work than I ever could have done on my own. Furthermore, he involved me in two research projects funded by the Spanish government, each within the Institute of Languages and Cultures of the Mediterranean and Near East of the Spanish National Research Council. The first project was “Recepción, transmisión y tradición de la Biblia en griego y latín: Edición y estudio de textos” (reference FFI2014-51910-P), and the second was “Edición y estudio de textos bíblicos y parabíblicos” (reference FFI2017-86726-P). Father Stephen Pisano, SJ, served as the official second reader for my dissertation. Sadly, he died just before my doctoral defense. He critiqued and improved this study, and it was he who first taught me textual criticism. In recognition of his generosity toward me, I dedicate this book to him. He served for many years as a professor and in many other roles at the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome, which generously granted me the standard doctoral scholarship. Father Craig Morrison, OCarm, of the Pontifical Biblical Institute, became the new second reader not long before my doctoral defense. I thank him for reading my work, sharing his insights, and encouraging me in my scholarly endeavors. Likewise, Fathers Natalio Fernández Marcos, SJ, (Spanish National Research Council) and Agustinus Gianto, SJ, (Pontifical Biblical Institute) served on my doctoral committee and offered me suggestions for the improvement of this book. I am grateful to my principal sponsor, the Saint Paul Seminary School of Divinity at the University of St. Thomas in St. Paul, MN, USA, where I have been on faculty since 2014. The Seminary covered all my remaining expenses. Besides this, I must acknowledge that my fellow professors and the seminary staff have readily assisted me whenever necessary.

12

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

My family also supported me during my years in Madrid (2016-2018) and Rome (2018-2019), always willing to talk on the phone or accommodate my vacation schedule back in the United States. Thank you for your encouragement and for the interest you have taken in my work. Thank you for your prayers. Thank you, brother priests with whom I sojourned abroad, so far away from my loved ones. Your fraternal support lightened the burden of my research project. Finally, if I have advanced the understanding of Old Latin Daniel, it was not without divine assistance. Thanks be to the Most High now and unto all ages, amen.

Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION

1. Preliminary remarks The history of Old Latin or Vetus Latina Sus-Dn-Bel1 runs from the dawn of Latin sacred scriptures at turn of the 3rd c. in North Africa, to its modification and diffusion throughout the Latin-speaking Mediterranean and Europe, to its eventual displacement by the Vg. Most of this history is lost to us, having perished with the manuscripts no longer appropriate for worship or lectio divina and, therefore, no longer copied. This state of affairs imposes an initial limit to any study of VL SusDn-Bel: namely, no complete manuscript has survived to give witness to it. Only fragmentary ones survive, along with citations of it and allusions to it by many Latin Fathers. Among these Fathers, however, only mid-4th-c. Lucifer of Caralis (modern Cagliari) quotes the text at length, providing much of Sus and Dn 7. Prior to him, mid3rd-c. Cyprian of Carthage stands out for his antiquity and reliability in scriptural citation, though he only provides up to a few verses at a time. Cyprian was himself preceded by his fellow Carthaginian Tertullian, who wrote in the late 2nd to early 3rd c. His handful of citations present numerous difficulties, but must be taken into consideration since they represent the earliest known stage of the development of Latin Sus-Dn-Bel. So too the Adversus Iudaeos attributed to Tertullian stands out for its late-2nd-c. citations but transmits fewer than ten verses of Dn. This study will provide textual history of Latin Sus-Dn-Bel during its earliest known stages of development through engaging in text-critical and linguistic analyses for the aforementioned patristic witnesses. In order to furnish the detailed analyses that the witnesses’ output deserves, it is necessary to limit the scope of this study to the period from the dawn of the VL to Lucifer’s two works citing Sus-DnBel, each of which dates to ca. 360. So, the period under study encompasses the works of Tertullian (including the Adversus Iudaeos attributed to him), Cyprian and contemporary Pseudo-Cyprianic authors, and Lucifer. Those writings comprise the 1 Sus-Dn-Bel refers to the biblical texts of Susanna, Daniel, and Bel and the Dragon in the Greek Old Testament and in derivative biblical versions, like the Vetus Latina. Sus and Bel, absent from the Hebrew Bible, were added to Dn in Greek. The two Latin manuscripts of Sus treated below show that, as in most Greek manuscripts, Sus precedes Dn. The Vulgate, however, has a different order: Dn-Sus-Bel. For a full list of biblical abbreviations, see p. 268.

14

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

principal focus of this work. Brief treatment will be given to the works of a small number of Fathers who, writing prior to 360, provide a much smaller quantity of citations of Sus-Dn-Bel: the Letter of Barnabas in its ancient Latin translation, Novatian, Victorinus of Poetovium, Lactantius, Firmicus Maternus, and Fortunatianus of Aquileia. After the period under consideration, Jerome of Stridon of the late 4th and early th 5 c. distinguishes himself for his Vg2 Dn-Sus-Bel as well as his commentary on the same. During and after Jerome’s lifetime, 5th-c. authors still often cited the VL version of the biblical book, as his version gradually gained prominence and authority. Nevertheless, a thorough treatment that examines all available evidence without chronological limit would require multiple volumes. Therefore, the present work comprises an initial contribution toward fulfilling the desideratum of a complete history. Despite the chronological circumscription of the study, the scope of which omits important writers such as Ambrose of Milan, Jerome of Stridon, and Augustine of Hippo, this study makes every effort to relate the material treated to pertinent later material. In doing so, it aims to facilitate an appreciation of the fundamental importance of the principal, early period under consideration. It also underscores VL Sus-Dn-Bel’s relative textual stability, which was established prior to Lucifer and continued after him, with later witnesses attesting texts from the same stemma codicum as Lucifer’s rather than independent translations. Hence, although Ambrose, Jerome, and Augustine have not been dealt with each in his own right, the reader will find reference to them whenever they shed light on the textual tradition found in the Fathers writing up to 360. Unless a Father was citing Sus-Dn-Bel in a work clearly composed before that year, he has only been treated insofar as his verses cited coincide with the ones up to 360. Therefore, even some contemporaries to Lucifer have been omitted, who nevertheless provide us with no clearly pre-360 citations of Sus-Dn-Bel. Such are Pacian of Barcelona, Optatus of Milevis, Hilary of Poitiers,3 Zeno of Verona, and the Latin translation of Irenaeus of Lyons’s Adversus haereses. The same applies to the anonymous witness of the fragmentary Sus-Dn-Bel manuscripts and liturgical texts. Hence they too, although not treated per se, are highlighted when they agree with the earliest Fathers. Since their relevance for a textual history depends upon their relationships to patristic citations, the present work lays the groundwork for another scholar to more fruitfully study the manuscripts in their own right. The Fathers can be situated in time and space,4 whereas a manuscript or “Vulgate” was not clearly used in the sense it is today until the 16th c. Nevertheless, throughout this work I use the term for convenience’s sake to describe Jerome’s new revisions and translations that would later form part of the Vg. 3 An exception is his partial citation of Sus 42 in the late 350s: HIL tri 4,8 (108,36). 4 Admittedly, variants within the textual tradition of patristic texts sometimes complicate the issue. Even so, the editors of critical patristic editions have helped to minimize this issue. Critical editions are indeed available for most of the patristic works treated in this study. See pp. 19-20. 2



Introduction 15

liturgical book, regardless of its current location, can transmit a text from any stage of transmission and location where the VL thrived. Before undertaking this study proper, the status quaestionis will first be described — a relatively brief section due to a dearth of studies. The pertinent research begins with Pierre Sabatier’s monumental work of the mid-18th c.5 and advances notably through the work of German-speaking scholars from the mid-19th c. to the end of the 20th. No one since Sabatier has systematically treated what remains of VL Sus-Dn-Bel in a study of any length. After presenting the status quaestionis, in the method section I shall describe the custom database used for the collection, manipulation, and viewing of VL Sus-DnBel evidence. I shall then describe the linguistic tools to be employed in the study, divided into text-critical and linguistic sections. I shall briefly characterize the scriptural citations of each patristic witness. The manuscripts, though not the proper object of this study, are also included here since reference is made to them so frequently. The reader will thus be free to refer back to this section as the authors’ citations are treated in detail. Then comes the heart of this study, a treatment of the early Fathers’ VL Sus-DnBel. For each Father, I shall begin with a text-critical analysis, taking into account the Greek Vorlage(n) of the Father’s scriptural texts as well as the other Latin witnesses. For this enterprise, the critical texts and apparatuses of the Septuaginta-Unternehmen’s Sus-Dn-Bel are crucial; I shall frequently reference its reconstructed texts and their variant readings.6 The text-critical section will additionally compare each author to other VL witnesses, with special attention given to his textual affinities. Then, for the same texts, linguistic analysis will be undertaken, subdivided into morphology, lexicon, and syntax. Here, the traits and peculiarities of each author will be highlighted so as to situate them within the broader field of Latin philology. Additionally, any detected theological intervention in the text will be noted and discussed. All the analysis just described will set the foundation for the concluding, synthetic description of the textual history of VL Sus-Dn-Bel from Tertullian to Lucifer. It will also provide the context for responses to questions concerning the unity or diversity of the VL evidence as well as which textual types can be discerned (if any). This will comprise the first thorough characterization of this material ever achieved. It is an essential step toward writing the full textual history and an eventual critical edition, whose publication will, it is hoped, be hastened by this study.

5

I-III. 2

Bibliorum sacrorum Latinæ versiones antiquæ, seu Vetus Italica (Remis 1743-1749, Turnholti 1991)

6 J. Ziegler – O. Munnich – D. Fraenkel (ed.), Susanna, Daniel, Bel et Draco (Sept. 16/2; Göttingen 1999).

16

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

2. Status quaestionis Relatively little has been written on VL Sus-Dn-Bel, and no critical edition has collected the surviving material for publication since the mid-18th c. At that time, it was Sabatier who printed the variants known to him in his Vetus Italica.7 Except for the canticles of Dn 3, he adduces no manuscript evidence for the versio antiqua. He draws the most material from Lucifer and includes most of the Cyprianic citations, though these latter are sometimes relegated to the notes in favor of more extended witnesses. An extended citation of Dn 9 from Augustine’s Epistula 111 stands out, as do the canticles of Dn 3 from VL 250 and VL 7,8 for which there are ample notes adducing further witnesses. Sabatier frequently prints his Greek text for the variant in question. Though outdated and now incomplete, his work is still a useful reference to quickly and easily identify which Fathers cite which verses, and how their texts relate to the Greek. In 1896 Francis Burkitt treated a few of the earliest Latin patristic witnesses to Dn, considering their principal importance to be their witness to their Greek Vorlage(n) rather than contributing to the knowledge and understanding the VL itself.9 He is keen to point out any alignment of these texts with the more primitive text of Greek Dn, LXXo’,10 which leads him to treat Tertullian most thoroughly, followed by Cyprian and Victorinus of Poetovium. Overlooking Tertullian’s agreements with the Theodotionic text (LXXθ’)11 against LXXo’, he concludes that the primitive North African text of Dn, represented by Tertullian, was a translation of LXXo’. In his groundbreaking study Burkitt does point out some of Tertullian’s agreements with LXXθ’.12 He fails, however, to point out other such agreements among his citations of Tertullian,13 claiming that the African generally follows LXXo’. Italica, II, 855-889. The Latin manuscript enumeration of the Vetus Latina-Institut is followed throughout the present work. See R. Gryson – H. J. Frede, Altlateinische Handschriften = Manuscrits vieux latins. Répertoire descriptif. I. Mss 1-275. II. Mss 300-485 (manuscrits du Psautier) (VL 1/2; Freiburg im Breisgau 1999, 2004) I-II. See also pp. 26-31 in the present work. The reprint of Sabatier adds an index that correlates his nomenclature with the current system, in Italica, III, appendix [s.p.]. 9 The Old Latin and the Itala. With an appendix containing the text of the S. Gallen Palimpsest of Jeremiah (ed. J. A. Robinson) (TaS IV/3; Cambridge, England 1896) 4. 10 LXX, representing the number seventy (Latin septuaginta) in Roman numerals, refers to the Greek Old Testament text which was thought to be the work of seventy translators, that is, the Septuagint. In the abbreviation “LXXo’,” the superscript omicron prime (o’) indicates the more primitive form of this text of Dn and its Greek additions, prior to a revision attributed to a certain Theodotion. The Greek letter omicron, like Latin “LXX,” represents seventy. LXXo’ stands in contrast to the later, Theodotionic text, which bears the first letter of his name, theta, in superscript: LXXθ’. See p. 266 for a list of such abbreviations. 11 See the previous note for an explanation of “LXXθ’.” 12 See Dn 2:34. 44 in Old Latin, 20; Dn 10:1 tertio in ibidem, 24. 13 See Dn 3:17 potens eruere nos, and Dn 7:10, in Old Latin, 20-22. Concerning this latter verse, see the correction of Burkitt by J. Ziegler – O. Munnich – D. Fraenkel (ed.), Sus-Dn-Bel, 96-97. Furthermore, for Dn 7:10 the transposed LXXθ’ variant of Greek 230 should be taken into consideration; see p. 73 of the present work. The rest of the agreements with LXXθ’ are: Dn 9:21 in oratione… uolans… quasi; 10:2 illis; and 10:3 consummarentur; in Burkitt, Old Latin, 24-25. Of these, Dn 9:21 has multiple elements particular to LXXθ’ 7 8



Introduction 17

For Burkitt, Cyprian’s mixed LXXo’-LXXθ’ citations represent the transition to LXXθ’ underway but not yet complete.14 The Pseudo-Cyprianic De pascha computus, on the other hand, shows that besides Cyprian’s mixed text there was also a pure translation of LXXθ’ circulating in the same milieu. Because Burkitt’s theory does not account for the numerous agreements of Tertullian with LXXθ’ against LXXo’, often overlooked in his study, I cannot accept his conclusion that Tertullian’s Dn, with few exceptions, corresponds to LXXo’. The three non-liturgical manuscripts of Sus-Dn-Bel each came to light gradually as ever more fragments were discovered, a process beginning in the early 1800s and ending in 1940. Friedrich Münter first published a portion of the 5th-c. palimpsest VL 17715 in 1819, complementing Dn fragments from the manuscript of Würzburg, in central Germany, with Sabatier’s versio antiqua, and with Greek readings.16 He recognized that more of the original text might be coaxed out by renewed efforts,17 a task that would be accomplished a half-century later by Ernst Ranke, who applied chemicals to the manuscript.18 This latter scholar produced much more careful, complete editions and undertook a much broader study of the material. Before superseding Münter’s work on VL 177, in 1857 Ranke presented the 5th-c. VL 175 of Weingarten (formerly of Constance), Germany, containing about a chapter and a half of Dn.19 Then, in 1871, he produced the still-current edition of VL 177, now representing about a third of Sus-Dn-Bel.20 The discovery of two more fragments of VL 175, including six verses of Dn, occasioned Peter Corssen’s edition of the new material and a renewed examination of this manuscript alongside VL 177.21 His reckoning of the texts’ origin as 3rd-c. North African has been confirmed by later studies. and, likewise, multiple elements particular to LXXo’. Burkitt mistakenly claims that this verse, as well as 10:2-3, simply follow LXXo’ against LXXθ’, in ibidem, 23. 14 Burkitt, Old Latin, 28. 15 The Vetus Latina-Institut’s text numbers, e.g. VL 177, technically indicate texts rather than manuscripts; multiple numbers are sometimes assigned to diverse biblical texts of a single document. In the present study, for convenience, the numbered texts will sometimes be called “manuscripts”. See the section on VL 175, VL 176, and VL 177, pp. 26-31, and the listing of VL manuscripts, p. 269, for more information. 16 Fragmenta versionis antiquae Latinae antehieronymianae prophetarum Ieremiae, Ezechielis, Danielis et Hoseae, e codice rescripto Bibliothecae Universitatis Wirceburgensis. Programma, quo inaugurationem Reverendissimi Episcopi Ripensis Stephani Tetens ... indicit d. Fridericus Münter (Hafniae 1819) 26-33. 17 Münter, Fragmenta, 37. 18 He applied chemical, for example, to p. 135, containing Dn 8:20-9:2; E. C. Ranke, Par palimpsestorum Wirceburgensium. Antiquissimae Veteris Testamenti versionis Latinae fragmenta (Vindobonae 1871) 158. Wirceburgensis refers to Würzburg, Germany. 19 Latinae Veteris Testamenti versionis antehieronymianae fragmenta. E codice Fuldensi eruta atque adnotationibus criticis instructa quibus accedit tabula lithographica (Marburgi 1856-1857) fasc. 2, 47-51. He reprinted the text in the second edition of this work, with an altered title, Fragmenta versionis Sacrarum Scripturarum latinae Antehieronymianae. E codice manuscripto (Vindobonae 21868) fasc. 2, 47-51. 20 Ranke, Par palimpsestorum, 125-126. 21 Zwei neue Fragmente der Weingartener Prophetenhandschrift. Nebst einer Untersuchung über das Verhältnis der Weingartener und Würzburger Prophetenhandschrift (Berlin 1899).

18

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

Advances on the three manuscripts continued into the 20th c. as Alban Dold in 1923 studied and republished VL 175, including fragments unknown to Ranke and Corssen, and the previously unprinted early 9th-c. VL 176 of Saint Gall, Switzerland.22 Dold presented the most systematic comparison of VL 175 with patristic sources, ranking each coincidence for its degree of agreement. He concluded that a preponderance of African Fathers agree with it, though by no means exclusively.23 On the occasion of Dold’s 1940 publication of yet more fragments of VL 176, now representing over half of Sus-Dn-Bel, he investigated its relationship to VL 175; he concluded that 176 most likely descends from a corrected, sister manuscript to 175.24 In 1940 Arthur Allgeier published a study on VL 175, 176, and 177, in which he took stock of the previous scholarship, even Dold’s work of the same year.25 Among thorough treatments of the three manuscripts, Allgeier’s contribution not only remains the most up-to-date but also provides a synthesis of his predecessors’ contributions. As he is not presenting any new texts, his work is much shorter than Dold’s and more synthetic, a digestible overview. It largely serves to confirm Dold’s findings. In 1954, Ziegler published the Greek critical edition of Sus-Dn-Bel for the Septuaginta-Unternehmen, in which he included VL evidence in the apparatus.26 In fact, he published the biblical book in the two surviving forms: the better-known recension attributed to Theodotion (LXXθ’) as well as the older, Septuagintal text (LXXo’). Although he uses the traditional theta (θ) to designate the so-called Theodotionic recension, he explains that his critical text probably has nothing to do with Theodotion himself.27 Nevertheless, others have criticized this position, confirming the association between the Theodotionic recension of Daniel and the man whose name it bears.28 Ziegler dedicates just a page to listing VL manuscript evidence for LXXθ’, including only VL 175, 176, and 177.29 No liturgical manuscripts are used, even for the canticles of Dn 3. There is no treatment of the Latin Fathers as witnesses to 22 Konstanzer altlateinische Propheten- und Evangelien-Bruchstücke mit Glossen. Nebst zugehörigen Prophetentexten aus Zürich und St. Gallen (TAB 1/7-9; Beuron in Hohenzollern – Leipzig 1923). For Dold, VL 175 is named for Weingarten, previously Konstanz, VL 176 for Sankt Gallen, and VL 177 for Würzburg. 23 Dold, Bruchstücke, 162-165. Note that most of the evidence comes from material outside of SusDn-Bel. 24 Neue St. Galler vorhieronymianische Propheten-Fragmente. Der St. Galler Sammelhandschrift 1398b zugehörig (TAB 1/31; Beuron in Hohenzollern 1940) 21. Although Dold dated VL 176 to the late 9th c., Gryson opts for the first decades of the same. See Dold, Propheten-Fragmente, 1; Gryson – Frede, Altlateinische Handschriften, I, 270. 25 “Die Konstanzer altlateinische Prophetenhandschrift,” JGG 1939 (1940) 79-95. 26 Susanna, Daniel, Bel et Draco (Sept. 16/2; Göttingen 11954). 27 J. Ziegler (ed.), Sus-Dn-Bel (1954), 28, n. 1; J. Ziegler – O. Munnich – D. Fraenkel (ed.), Sus-DnBel, 121, n. 1. 28 N. Fernández Marcos, Introducción a las Versiones Griegas de la Biblia (TECC 64; Madrid 21998) 157-161. 29 J. Ziegler (ed.), Sus-Dn-Bel (1954), 36-37; J. Ziegler – O. Munnich – D. Fraenkel (ed.), Sus-Dn-Bel, 129-130.



Introduction 19

LXXθ’, just a reference to Ziegler’s own brief, VL witness list for Ez in the Göttingen LXX series, to which he adds Verecundus of Junca.30 In other words, Ziegler undertakes no systematic study of Latin patristic citations based on LXXθ’ Sus-DnBel, nor of those derived from Greek Ez. In the 1999 second edition, which reproduces Ziegler’s LXXθ’ text and apparatus, Munnich adds his own introduction for his thoroughly revised LXXo’. Munnich’s contribution concerns LXXo’, for he prints a photostatic reproduction of Ziegler’s LXXθ’ along with its introduction, correcting only typographical errors. Within his description of sources he dedicates a few pages to VL evidence.31 He focuses principally on Tertullian, Cyprian, and Victorinus of Poetovium, listing and characterizing their citations. The LXXθ’ text is “updated” in the sense that the second edition offers an appendix to the introduction in which Detlef Fraenkel describes and collates new Greek manuscripts.32 Since the collations have not been integrated into the apparatus, they can only be consulted separately for each manuscript. In 2002, the Belgian publisher Brepols made available online by subscription their scans of the Vetus Latina-Institut’s notecards of Latin biblical citations within their Vetus Latina Database.33 This collection is impressively complete, given the vast number of authors and works as well as editions of VL manuscripts that are catalogued.34 There are, nevertheless, some important gaps in the record. For example, Dold’s later fragments of VL 176 and direct citations by Tertullian and Cyprian are misfiled or missing, and the hundreds of notecards of Jerome’s In Danielem were made from Jacques-Paul Migne’s 1845 edition rather than François Glorie’s drastically improved one of 1964.35 The Vetus Latina-Institut has also long published an essential reference work to accompany their editions and the notecards: Bonifatius Fischer’s 1949 Verzeichnis der Sigel für Kirchenschriftsteller.36 The two successors to this are 1) Roger Gryson and Hermann Josef Frede’s two-volume Altlateinische Handschriften = Manuscrits Vieux Latins, which appeared in 1999 and 2004,37 and 2) the Institut’s 2007 two-volume Répertoire général des auteurs ecclésiastiques latins de l’Antiquité et du Haut Moyen 30 J. Ziegler (ed.), Ezechiel (Sept. 16/1; Göttingen 1952) 21-23, 84-85; J. Ziegler – O. Munnich – D. Fraenkel (ed.), Sus-Dn-Bel, 136. 31 J. Ziegler – O. Munnich – D. Fraenkel (ed.), Sus-Dn-Bel, 96-100. 32 J. Ziegler – O. Munnich – D. Fraenkel (ed.), Sus-Dn-Bel, 170-214. 33 Vetus Latina-Institut, “Vetus Latina Database” (2020) http://apps.brepolis.net/vld/Default.aspx. 34 Most works were catalogued at least twice, as new editions replaced older ones. See H. J. Frede, “Bibelzitate bei Kirchenvätern. Beobachtungen bei der Herausgabe der Vetus Latina,” La Bible et les Pères. Colloque de Strasbourg, 1-3 Oct., 1969 (ed. A. Benoît – P. Prigent) (BCESS; Paris 1971) 79-96, 85. 35 Dold, Propheten-Fragmente. The card for Dn 9:23 in TE je 7,8 (1264) is misfiled as Dn 10:14, and Dn 3:25 in CY lap 31 (238,615) is missing. The two editions of HI Dn are: Jerome of Stridon, “Commentaria in Danielem,” Opera Omnia. Tomus V (ed. J.-P. Migne) (PL 25; Lutetiae Parisiorum 1845) 491-584; Opera Exegetica. V. Commentariorum in Danielem libri III (ed. F. Glorie) (CCSL 75A; Turnholti 1964). 36 Verzeichnis der Sigel für Handschriften und Kirchenschriftsteller (VL 1; Freiburg im Breisgau 11949). 37 Altlateinische Handschriften.

20

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

Âge.38 The latter work was last updated in 2013, an edition only available online via the Vetus Latina Database. All these reference works facilitate VL research by providing quick access to basic information, especially concerning the biblical text, on virtually every patristic composition and manuscript in the early Latin patristic tradition. This brings us to a summary of the evidence for VL Sus-Dn-Bel that is as current as it is brief: José Manuel Cañas Reíllo’s entry in The Textual History of the Bible.39 He lists the principal manuscripts as well as the most important Fathers and notes the general unity of the tradition, adducing illustrations for this as well as exceptions showing diversity. This is the first systematic treatment of the material since the mid18th c. At just a few pages in length, it serves as an enticement for a more thorough study such as the present one, which takes advantage of print and online resources that are considerably superior to the editions available a quarter-millennium ago. Finally, I presented and discussed the textual history of VL Sus in my lectio coram publico of Oct. 27, 2017 at the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome,40 a prerequisite for full candidacy in the doctoral program of the institute. That 45-page study laid much of the groundwork for the current one. It established VL Sus dependence on manuscripts of the Greek Q (Codex Marchalianus) group. In addition, it characterized the mostly literal translation technique, contextualized the Latin vocabulary, and established VL influence on Vg Sus.41 Although that work was not published, its results have here been integrated and refined whenever pertinent. 3. Method 3.1. Basic approach to material The method here employed begins with the collection of witnesses to VL SusDn-Bel and ends with their text-critical and linguistic analysis in order to trace their textual history. Perhaps what most distinguishes my approach is my construction of a custom database for collecting, manipulating, and viewing the Latin citations. The fundamentals of the analysis of the data, however, remain the same as they have long been: use of critical editions, with attention to variant readings, comparison to related Greek and Latin texts, and contextualization of phenomena in time and space. 38 R. Gryson – H. J. Frede – B. Fischer, Répertoire général des auteurs ecclésiastiques latins de l’antiquité et du haut Moyen Âge (VL 1/1; Freiburg im Breisgau 52007) I-II. 39 “Daniel. Vetus Latina,” THiB. Writings (ed. A. Lange – E. Tov) (1C; Leiden – Boston 2017) 575-578; Cf. Idem, “Daniel, Additions to. Latin,” THiB. The Deuterocanonical Scriptures (ed. F. Feder – M. Henze) (2B; Leiden – Boston 2019) 153-157. 40 K. Zilverberg, The Textual History of Old Latin Susanna (Opusculum ad lectionem coram publico, Pontifical Biblical Institute; Rome 2017). 41 Cf. G. Hoberg, De Sancti Hieronymi ratione interpretandi (Friburgi Brisgoviae 1886) 38.



Introduction 21

The method’s application will be adapted to the material and, therefore, fluctuate modestly. Whereas Tertullian provides a handful of citations and some important allusions, Lucifer presents us nearly two biblical chapters. Whereas the former is difficult to align with the Greek, the latter is easily aligned. Between these two extremes of Tertullian and Lucifer lies Cyprian, both in quantity of citations and difficulty of analysis. On the one hand Tertullian requires one to extract the maximum of information from his scanty material. On the other hand, Lucifer’s extensive citations require a more synthetic approach. Cyprian occupies the middle of this spectrum. 3.2. Data collection, manipulation, and viewing The data for this study lie dispersed in myriad publications. They include the Fathers’ citations of, and occasionally allusions to, Sus-Dn-Bel, the fragmentary manuscripts of the same, and liturgical texts. Many of these latter texts remain unpublished, though a growing number are being digitized and uploaded for online manuscript viewing. The liturgical canticles are attested in a great number of manuscripts, but for the most part these are not the passages needed for comparison with the Fathers of this study. The subscription-only Vetus Latina Database42 provides an excellent starting point for collecting such disparate data, offering a rather thorough collection of scanned notecards. They are grouped by verse cited, and duplicated if they allude to multiple verses. Within each verse’s group they are alphabetized by source. Each scan bears a biblical citation from the patristic tradition, the biblical book and verse numbers, an abbreviation of its source, its location in that source, and, sometimes, variant readings from the critical apparatus. Furthermore, the database contains basic information about each author and work (but not the manuscripts); this is more upto-date than the print edition that it supersedes.43 Nevertheless, the limitations of the Vetus Latina Database motivated me to create my own, private, custom database using Microsoft Access. The only metadata available beyond each scan is the book, chapter, and verse cited. Therefore, for each of the roughly 7,000 scans I created a corresponding record in the principal table of my database. Each record contains fields for the author, work, page and line in the work, transcription of text, whether or not it is a citation or allusion, notes, etc. The rest of the database is structured around that principal table of data, providing related data and tools to view and manipulate them. I wrote many hundreds of lines of computer code in Visual Basic for Applications to establish the structure and interaction of the database components, which included tables, forms, queries, reports, and modules. 42 43

Vetus Latina-Institut, “Database”. Gryson – Frede – Fischer, Répertoire général (52007).

22

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

The database proved a great aid in keeping such disparate information organized and easily sortable and accessible. It provisioned desiderata of the Vetus Latina Database, such as the possibility of sorting out all the cards of an author and generally displaying related cards beyond the current one-verse limitation. With that system in place, I set about transcribing cards, adding missing ones, and consulting critical editions. In many cases the text of a citation could be copied and pasted from the Library of Latin Texts.44 I marked each file to indicate whether the text was transcribed directly from the card, copied from the Library, or transcribed from the latest critical edition. This allowed me to progressively improve the data by checking them against the best editions, at which point any corrections were introduced and the record marked as matching the edition. Variants from the critical apparatuses, often written already on the card, were incorporated into the transcribed text in parentheses. 3.3. Data analysis Once the citations and allusions were transcribed according to the latest critical editions, I generated a Microsoft Word file for each author, working mostly in chronological order. I read through all the author’s material and took notes. During this process I made extensive use of the critical apparatuses of Greek texts to determine the most likely Vorlage of each citation. Access to the digitized apparatuses through Logos Bible Software allowed me to paste the pertinent data directly into the Word file, leaving out all the irrelevant textual variants. I checked the digitized apparatuses against the printed ones and found the former to be admirably correct; the errors I encountered had to do with spacing and formatting, not the content. I looked for patterns of textual affiliation with Greek witnesses and shared readings with Latin ones, these latter being included in the Word file generated by the database. All lexical features of note were marked so as to later report on the most important ones. The inclusion of the Vg text for each verse served as a point of reference particularly helpful for sorting out the VL material from Vg citations. 3.4. Text-critical analysis Although I collected many biblical allusions along with the citations, these latter constitute the principal focus of the study. They are the ones that allow significant insight into the text forms circulating in antiquity. Nevertheless, the allusions are occasionally helpful in establishing dependence on one Greek text type or the other, or in suggesting the Father’s knowledge of a key word, especially when the word 44

Brepols, “Library of Latin Texts” (2020) http://clt.brepolis.net/llta/.



Introduction 23

is corroborated by other VL witnesses. So direct citations have been given preference, whereas greater caution has been exercised to the extent that a text departs from literality. Carroll Osburn provides a helpful scale of patristic verbal fidelity to one’s scriptural source: 1) citation, 2) adaptation, 3) allusion, 4) reminiscence, and 5) locution.45 For him, a citation is “a verbally exact quotation;” an adaptation is a recognizable quotation which has, nevertheless, been adapted to the patristic context; an allusion references the content of a biblical passage but contains only limited “verbal or motif correspondence” to it; a reminiscence “has little or no sustained verbal correspondence” to the biblical passage which it echoes; and a locution contains biblical language but “cannot be identified with a specific text.”46 One will recognize sensitivity to this gradation in the present work, but the simplified terminology of “citation” and “allusion” has been used here, with nuances added in prose when necessary. Preference is given to longer citations over their shorter reprises.47 The comparison of each witness studied to the rest allows one to relate the texts to one another and sometimes to determine dependence and priority. Obviously this is essential to a study that seeks to trace the appearance and diffusion of texts. It also gives perspective to those elements which are passed on and circulated widely, and those which are emended over time. For each witness a text-critical analysis is carried out to identify the Greek Vorlage as well as agreements with other Latin witnesses. The determination, as much as possible, of the underlying Greek text not only serves to establish patterns of manuscript affinity but also lays the foundation for the linguistic analysis. VL Sus-DnBel is literal enough, and our knowledge of variant Greek readings broad enough, that one can almost always align the Latin with extant Greek witnesses. I sought patterns of affinity with individual Greek manuscripts and with one or more manuscript groupings. When presenting two or more texts in parallel columns, I have used a series of typographical conventions to draw attention to their similarities and differences. Usually the Latin biblical text follows at least one Greek text closely enough to make the equivalent words appear in the same row, each in its respective column. If there are more than three columns, those most agreeing with the middle, Latin column flank it, whereas those with fewer agreements are relegated to an outside column. Variant readings, when few, are placed in parentheses along with indications of their sources; when many, they receive their own column under the heading “Var.” Furthermore, bolding, font variation, and italics draw attention to agreements between columns. Taking a cue “Methodology in Identifying Patristic Citations in NT Textual Criticism,” NT 47/4 (2005) 313-343, 318. Osburn, “Methodology”, 318. 47 Osburn, “Methodology”, 322-323; cf. A. Piras, “Bibbia e sermo biblicus negli scritti luciferiani,” La figura e l’opera di Lucifero di Cagliari: una rivisitazione. Atti del I convegno internazionale, Cagliari, 5-7 dicembre 1996 (ed. S. Laconi) (SEAug 75; Roma 2001) 131-144, 134-135. 45

46

24

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

from Burkitt,48 I have used bold type for agreements with LXXo’ and italics for agreements with LXXθ’. The convention is indicated at the top of the column, for instance an italic “with TE” for the LXXθ’ column to remind the reader that those words and phrases in italics match Tertullian’s text (TE) but disagree with LXXo’. The matching Latin is also italicized. Sometimes a third Greek column is added from a particular manuscript or one of the Fathers. In this case the Calibri font is used for matching words or phrases. Moreover, the manuscript or patristic column may also have some bolded or italicized words if they agree with either LXXo’ or LXXθ’ and the Latin reading. This helps the reader identify a reading that has been passed from the “original” of a Greek text type, LXXo’ or LXXθ’, to both a pertinent secondary Greek witness and the Latin one. Finally, underlining have been used to draw attention to pluses, whereas blank spaces or an “×” have been used for minuses.49 3.5. Linguistic analysis A linguistic analysis complements the text-critical one just described. Indeed, beyond tracing manuscript affiliations and the spread of Latin textual types, one must contextualize the VL linguistic features in their respective contexts. To trace those features over time and geographically is an integral part of the textual history that this study claims to be. Furthermore, the two approaches, text-critical and linguistic, inform one another. For example, Lucifer’s penchant for asyndeton must be taken into account when analyzing the many minuses in his Sus-Dn texts. The judgment whether or not he excised words affects his alignment with the Greek witnesses. Conversely, careful attention to the Greek witnesses may present convincing evidence that Lucifer’s minuses simply mirror those of his Vorlage. Linguistic peculiarities have been treated, when possible, as part of a broader phenomenon; Hermann Rönsch and Edoardo Vineis provide that context in their much wider VL studies, so footnotes refer the reader to the pertinent sections of their works.50 Philip Burton’s study of the Old Latin Gospels shows the fruitfulness of the linguistic analysis of VL Old Latin, 25-26. “Plus” and “minus” belong to the language of textual criticism. The former indicates a textual witness’s additional word(s) vis-à-vis another witness, and the latter indicates a lacking word or words. The convention employed for marking pluses and minuses in the present work is not absolute, for sometimes one can easily identify an omission as literary rather than Greek-based. E.g. at Dn 10:11-12 Tertullian’s Daniel (p. 71) is not repeated for the second verse after just being written for the brief introduction from the verse prior. See J. Ziegler – O. Munnich – D. Fraenkel (ed.), Sus-Dn-Bel, 97. N.B. besides the multi-column tables, underlining has also been used in this work simply to draw attention to a portion of text. When parallel texts are presented it should be clear when the underlining is aligned with a blank space or an “×”, in which case the relationship is that of plus to minus. 50 H. Rönsch, Itala und Vulgata. Das Sprachidiom der urchristlichen Itala und der katholischen Vulgata, unter Berücksichtigung der römischen Volkssprache (Marburg 21875); E. Vineis, “Studio sulla lingua dell’Itala,” ItD 34 (1971) 136-248; 36 (1973) 287-372; 37 (1974) 154-166. 48 49



Introduction 25

text and provides categories valid for Old Testament texts as well.51 Studies on socalled “vulgar” Latin and those attentive to texts pertaining to the lower social strata sometimes shed light on VL texts as well.52 VL texts preserve morphological peculiarities, which have been documented for each witness. Sometimes the reader must be familiar with the vulgarisms typical of non-literary Late Latin in order to spot them. For example, Pseudo-Cyprian’s et ciuitatem et illum sanctum corrumpet at Dn 9:26 could pass as a reference to a holy one, *ille sanctus in the nominative case, when in fact illum is here neuter; classical Latin would have *illud. It is a reference to the Jerusalem Temple, which is made clearer when one recognizes that the neuter illum is a common vulgarism found in VL texts and appears elsewhere in the Pseudo-Cyprianic corpus. The Greek texts are also a helpful reference in such cases; all but one of them have the neuter τὸ ἅγιον in this instance. VL texts contribute greatly to understanding the vocabulary of the growing Latin church. Their often unpretentious character serves to record vocabulary that otherwise might have remained spoken only. The earliest texts come from the time when Christian Latin was forged, a period that produced many coinages that endured as well as other ones that were quickly displaced. Moreover, besides religious coinages, these texts are full of everyday words that have nothing particularly Christian about them. By analyzing noteworthy vocabulary of Sus-Dn-Bel this study contributes to the larger project of tracing Latin lexical history in general and patristic lexical history in particular. Several dictionaries are particularly helpful for this analysis: 1) the in-progress Thesaurus Linguae Latinae, unparalleled in its thoroughness, 2) Egidio Forcellini’s Totius Latinitatis Lexicon, used in cases where the Thesaurus is unfinished, 3) the Oxford Latin Dictionary, which covers the classical period up to about AD 200, and 4) Albert Blaise’s Dictionnaire Latin-Français des Auteurs Chrétiens, for in-depth coverage of the Fathers.53 For Greek, preference is given to the in-progress DiccioThe Old Latin Gospels. A Study of their Texts and Language (OECS; Oxford 2000). V. I. Väänänen, Introduction au latin vulgaire (BFR.A 6; Paris 31981); J. N. Adams, Social Variation and the Latin Language (Cambridge 2016). 53 Thesaurus linguae Latinae. Editus auctoritate et consilio academiarum quinque Germanicarum Berolinensis, Gottingensis, Lipsiensis, Monacensis, Vindobonensis. I. A - Amyzon. II. An - Byzeres. III. C - comus. IV. Con - cyulus. V/1. D - dze. V/2. E - ezoani. VI/1. F - gemo. VI/2. Gemo - gytus. VI/3. H - hystrix. VII/1. I - intervulsus. VII/2. Intestabilis - lyxipyretos. VIII. M - myzon. IX/1. N – (nemo). IX/2. O - ozynosus. X/1. P – porrum. X/2. Porta - pyxis. XI/2. R – (relinquo) (Lipsiae – München – Berlin – Stuttgart 1900-1905, 1901-1906, 1907-1912, 1906-1909, 1910-1934, 1931-1953, 1913-1927, 1929-1934, 1936-1947, 1934-1965, 1956-1979, 1936-1966, 2011-[2018], 1969-1981, 1982-2010, 1980-2009, 2012-[2020]) I-XI; E. Forcellini – G. Furnaletto – V. de Vit, Totius Latinitatis Lexicon. Opera et studio Aegidii Forcellini lucubratum et in hac editione post tertiam auctam et emendatam a Josepho Furlanetto alumno Seminarii patavini novo ordine digestum amplissime auctum atque emendatum cura et studio Vincentii De-Vit (Prati 1853-1879) I-X; P. G. W. Glare (ed.), Oxford Latin Dictionary (Oxford 22012) I-II; A. Blaise, Dictionnaire latin-français des auteurs chrétiens (Réimpression anastatique suivie d’addenda et de corrigenda) (Turnhout 1954, 1997). 51 52

26

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

nario Griego-Español, and the Greek-English Lexicon where that is lacking; the Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature and the Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint have also been useful.54 Besides these, recourse has been made to specialized literature. VL syntax depends greatly on that of its Greek Vorlage. When the Latin text mirrors it closely, there is little comment to be made. Nevertheless, there are instances of departure from the Greek; these constitute the focus of the syntactical commentary. Hofmann – Szantyr’s Lateinische Grammatik: Lateinische Syntax provides a helpful diachronic treatment of Latin grammar, including writings from late antiquity.55 An array of literature treating Late and vulgar Latin has also proved useful; these titles can be found in the footnotes. 3.6. Conclusion The method of this study was driven by its aim, the writing of a textual history of VL Sus-Dn-Bel. It is contemporary in its use of technology yet traditional in its dependence on proven text-critical and linguistic scholarship. Its use of the complementary approaches of text-critical and linguistic examinations has resulted in a history more integrated and accurate for the light that these two analyses shed upon one another. 4. The Latin evidence 4.1. Direct tradition: the manuscripts Cañas Reíllo lists the principal manuscripts for VL Sus-Dn-Bel, of which the related witnesses VL 175, 176, and 177 transmit the greatest quantity of text.56 There are also many liturgical manuscripts, some published, containing portions 54 E. Gangutia – J. Rodríguez Somolinos et al., Diccionario Griego-Español (ed. F. Rodríguez Adrados et al.) (Madrid 22008, 1986, 1991, 1994, 1997, 2002, 2009, 2019) I-VIII; H. G. Liddell et al., A Greek-English Lexicon (9th ed. with supplements) (Oxford – New York 1996); W. Bauer – F. W. Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago 32000); T. Muraoka, A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint (Louvain – Paris – Walpole, MA 2009). 55 Lateinische Grammatik. II. Lateinische Syntax und Stilistik (verbesserter Nachdruck) (ed. H. Bengtson) (HAW 2/2/II; München 1965, 1972). 56 “Daniel,” 575. The other two manuscripts in his primary list are VL 182 and VL 191, each containing portions of Dn 3. The former has been partially published, but its VL contents have not been transcribed; cf. Monachi Abbatiae Pontificiae Sancti Hieronymi in Urbe (ed.), Liber Danihelis. Ex interpretatione sancti Hieronymi cum praefationibus et variis capitulorum seriebus (BSV 16; Romae 1981) xi. Nevertheless, it was collated for the edition just cited. The other manuscript, VL 191, is an unpublished, barely legible palimpsest.



Introduction 27

of Dn 3. I have consulted some of these, but, for the most part, they are unhelpful for the present study since they do not align with the Fathers treated. The following table presents the basic information on the three principal manuscripts for VL Sus-Dn-Bel: VL 175, 176, and 177. The left column lists each manuscript’s sigla according to author and reference work,57 and then the manuscripts’ latest printed editions. Next the holding libraries and shelfmarks are listed. The last three columns provide the century and place of origin, a list of manuscript contents, and more specifically the verses of Sus-Dn-Bel that it contains.

Sigla, edition

Libraries

C.; Origin

Content

Sus-Dn-Bel

VL: 175

Darmstadt, Hessische Landes- und Hochschulbibliothek 895; 3140 (previously 896) (2 folios)

5th c.; North Italy

fragments of Ez, Dn, Os, Am, Mi, Jl, Jon, Na; 5th-6th c. glosses

Dn 2:18-33, 9:25-10:11, 11:16-23. 35-39

Corssen: Weing. Dold: Const Allgeier: ℭ

Stenzel: cst CLA: VIII 1174 BSV: 175 edition: Dold, Bruchstücke, 30-112.

Donaueschingen, Hofbibliothek B. I. 3, previously 191 Fulda, Landesbibliothek Aa la (16 folios) Sankt Paul im Lavanttal (Kamten), Stiftsbibliothek s. n. (4 folios) Stuttgart, Württembergische Landesbibliothek fragm. 100 (20 folios) formerly: Constance and Weingarten, southern Germany

57 The authors are listed in the bibliography (p. 237), and the reference works among abbreviations for modern literature (p. 284).

28

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

VL: 176 Dold: FrS Allgeier: 𝔖 Stenzel: sg BSV: 176

Sankt Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek 1398b p. 126-175 Zürich, Zentralbibliothek C 184 (389) Fragments 23 and 24 (=folios 24 and 25)

early 9th c.; Saint Gall, Switzerland

a Bible, of which fragments of Ez and Sus-DnBel are VL

Sus 1-64, Dn 1:1-9, 3:36-60, 4:20-8:17, 8:21-9:2, 9:6-7. 15-16, 9:22-10:11. 16-21, 11:612:13, Bel 1-42

5th c.; Italy (palimpsest, primary text)

Prophets, of which fragments of Os, Jon, Is, Jr, Ez, Dn remain; later reused for AU Ps 1-32 en 1

Sus 2-10, Dn 1:15-2:9, 3:15-50, 8:5-9:10, 10:3-11:6. 20-21. 2325. 26-28. 31-33 Bel 36-42

edition: Dold, Bruchstücke, 228-278; Idem, ProphetenFragmente, 24-75. VL: 177 Corssen: Wirc. Dold: Wirc Allgeier: 𝔚

CLA: IX 1420 BSV: 177

Würzburg, Universitätsbibliothek M. p. th. f. 64a, pages 17-20, 29-46, 49-50, 97-132, 169-268, 277-280, 295-316

edition: Ranke, Par palimpsestorum, 47-144.

Within the Status quaestionis section I briefly recounted the history of research on Dn in VL 175, 176, and 177,58 to which more details will be added here. From that initial treatment the reader is already aware of their interrelatedness; since the three non-liturgical manuscripts for Sus-Dn-Bel share a common history they can, therefore, be treated together.59 It is precisely within Dn that all three manuscripts overlap for seven verses, which serves to illustrate a pattern evident elsewhere as well: VL 175 and 176 agree most closely, whereas 177 represents 58 59

See p. 17, n. 15 for information on this manuscript numbering system. Gryson, in fact, treats them together in Gryson – Frede, Altlateinische Handschriften, I, 268.



Introduction 29

a different branch of the same tradition.60 Dold’s 1923 Konstanzer Bruchstücke builds upon the 1899 work of Corssen and restates the latter’s thesis that VL 175 represents a text developed in early 3rd-c. Africa that underwent significant changes in its multi-century transmission.61 The same goes, says Dold, for VL 177,62 which shares a common heritage with 175 and 176. VL 175 and 176 share more in common with one another than they do with 177, yet neither of the two branches seems to transmit an older text than the other.63 Roger Gryson treats the text of the three manuscripts together but has almost nothing to say about SusDn-Bel,64 surely for lack of publications. Cañas Reíllo presents a selection of interesting readings of all three manuscripts in his brief article.65 Although remedying the lacuna is beyond the scope of this study, it is hoped that, through this study’s highlighting these manuscripts’ relations to the earliest VL Sus-Dn-Bel witnesses, the foundation is hereby laid for them one day to be re-examined and situated more precisely within the textual history to which they belong. Both VL 176 and 177 attest the usual Greek order of Sus-Dn-Bel as opposed to the Hexaplaric and Vg ordering of Dn-Sus-Bel. Sus-Dn-Bel may have been the original Greek order, but our earliest witness to the whole book, the LXXo’ papyrus 967, attests Dn-Bel-Sus.66 To complicate matters even more, the papyrus also places the chapters we know as 7-8 between 4-5, as in the Liber promissionum of mid-5th-c. North African Quodvultdeus.67 The 5th-c., northern Italian, manuscript VL 175 underwent dismemberment and reuse in bindings around the 15th c., resulting in its current dispersion among five libraries.68 Its Dn fragments add up to about two chapters, the least of the three manuscripts. The VL 176 Saint Gall, Switzerland fragments published by Dold in 1923 and 1940 are written in Carolingian minuscule by various scribes, some of which were formed in Northern Italy.69 Besides ample sections of VL versions of Ez, Dn, Bel, and the Twelve Prophets, it contains fragments from the whole of Sus, with some verses entirely legible and others barely so. Allgeier, “Prophetenhandschrift,” 88. Corssen, Fragmente, 38; Dold, Bruchstücke, 158, 163-169. 62 Bruchstücke, 158. 63 Gryson – Frede, Altlateinische Handschriften, I, 268. 64 Gryson – Frede, Altlateinische Handschriften, I, 268-269. 65 Cañas Reíllo, “Daniel”. 66 J. Ziegler – O. Munnich – D. Fraenkel (ed.), Sus-Dn-Bel, 20-22; L. Lahey, “The Additions to Daniel,” T&T Clark Companion to the Septuagint (ed. J. K. Aitken) (London – New Delhi – New York – Sydney 2015) 555-567, 563-564. 67 On the importance of Quodvultdeus as a witness to the alternative chapter ordering, see P.-M. Bogaert “Le témoignage de la Vetus Latina dans l’étude de la tradition des Septante. Ézéchiel et Daniel dans le Papyrus 967” Bib. 59 (1978) 384-395, 384-387. 68 Gryson – Frede – Fischer, Répertoire général (52007), 276. 69 Gryson – Frede, Altlateinische Handschriften, I, 270. 60 61

30

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

The text of VL 177, codex Wirceburgensis (Würzburg, Germany), derives from a palimpsest first written in the 5th c., which is the only manuscript besides VL 176 that contains material from Sus: the title DANIEL PROF followed by a small lacuna and Sus 2b-10a. The hand is an Italian uncial.70 Here follows a three-column table for comparison of Dn 10:7-11, one of the few pericopes attested in all three manuscripts.71 As noted above, VL 175 and VL 176 are generally closer to one another than either is to VL 177. The former two read istum at Dn 10:8, but VL 177 reads hunc. The same alignment can be seen in conpunctus eram (10:9) and eregit (10:10), against VL 177 eram conpunctus and excitauit. Nevertheless, there are other agreements outside this pattern. VL 175 and 177 read constringens (10:10) and statu tuo (10:11, VL 175 reconstructed) versus VL 176 contingens and tuo . VL 176 and 177 read contrition- (10:8) versus VL 175 corruption-. VL 175

VL 176

VL 177

Dn 10:7 Et uidi ego, Daniel, solus uisum, et uiri qui mecum erant non uiderunt uisum, sed timor magnus conruit supra eos, et fugerunt in timore 8 et ego relictus sum solus. Et uidi uisum magnum istum, et non est relicta in me uirtus, et gloria mea conuesa est in contionem et n tenui uirtu meam. 9 Et adiui uocem borum eiu cum audir eum conptus eram, facies mea 72 terram.

Dn 10:7… ego, Danihel, solus uisum, et uiri qui mecum erant non uiderunt uisum, sed timor magnus corruit supra eos, et fugerunt in timorem 8 et ego relictus sum solus. Et uidi uisum magnum istum, et non est relicta in me uirtus, et gloria mea conuersa est in corrumptionem et non tenui uirtutem meam. 9 Et audiui uocem uerborum eius, et cum audirem eum conpunctus eram, et facies mea ad terram.

Dn 10:7 Et uidi ego, Daniel, solus uisum, et uiri qui mecum erant non uiderunt uisum, sed timor magnus corruit supra eos, et fugerunt in timore 8 et ego relictus sum solus. Et uidi uisum magnum hunc, et non est relicta in me uirtus, et gloria mea conuersa est in corruptione et non tenui uirtutem meam. 9 Et audiui uoce uerborum eius, et cum audirem eum eram conpunctus, et facies mea ad terram.

Gryson – Frede, Altlateinische Handschriften, I, 272. Arthur Allgeier selected Dn 10:3-6. 20-22 to collate seven verses extant in all three manuscripts even before addition fragments of VL 176 were published in 1940. See “Prophetenhandschrift,” 88. 72 The 1923 transcription has the conjecture ; Dold, Bruchstücke, 109; cf. Ranke, Fragmenta (21868), 51. In light of the parallel VL 176 fragment published in 1940 I have changed it to . Cf. Dold, Propheten-Fragmente, 55. 70 71



Introduction 31

10 Et ce manus ctingens m, eregit me pra genua . 11 Et dixit mi, “Daniel, uir dderiorum, tellege ue quae ego ti loquor. Et s in sta…”

10 Et ecce manus constringens me, et eregit me supra genua mea. 11 Et dixit mihi, “Danihel, uir desideriorum, intellege uerba que ego tibi lor. Et stabis tuo …”

10 Et ecce manus contingens me, et excitauit me super genua mea. 11 Et dixit, “Mi73 Daniel, uir desideriorum intelle (!) uerba quae ego tibi loquor. Et adsta in statu tuo quoniam nunc missus sum ad te.”

4.2. Indirect tradition: patristic citations The witnesses to VL Sus-Dn-Bel fall into two broad categories: North African and European. This division, though not an impermeable barrier, has been helpful in VL text criticism.74 The obvious criterion here is geographical: where was the text produced? Each text known to proceed from Africa helps to establish the textual features proper to it. These can then be compared to other witnesses, such as the manuscripts, to determine how “African” they are. Vocabulary selection is especially helpful here, for the general lexical preferences of the African and European groups have long been acknowledged.75 There is, of course, variety within that group; even more so can one expect variety for a region as large as Christian, Latin-speaking Europe. Nevertheless, the use of this typical VL division between Africans and Europeans should not deceive the reader into assuming that the two regions produced independent translations of the book. The geographical criterion does admit of one exception in this study: Firmicus’s text, which he copies from Cyprian. Although the author is Sicilian and therefore European, Firmicus’s direct reproduction of an African’s text places his scriptural witness in the same grouping as his source. 73 Ranke claims that the scribe of this uncial manuscript, who wrote MIDANIEL (Mi Daniel) intended to write *MIHIDANIEL (Mihi Daniel). His basis for the claim is that the 2nd and 3rd characters, -ID-, are reduced, which leaves a space large enough for punctuation (to indicate the missing *-HI-); Par palimpsestorum, 396. Notice that, just a few words later, intelle similarly lacks its ending. A later hand added -ge; ibidem, 158, 396. 74 Burton briefly traces its history and applies it to the VL Gospels, 14-15; cf. K. Zelzer, “Vetus Latina,” GRL. IV. Die literatur des Umbruchs. Von der römischen zur christlichen Literatur. 117 bis 284 n. Chr. (ed. K. Sallmann) (HAW 8/IV; München 1997) 352-367, 353. Each editor of the Vetus Latina-Institut chooses his or her own division of text types, yet the basic African/European framework can frequently be observed, sometimes directly, sometimes indirectly. Cf. B. Fischer (ed.), Genesis (VL 2; Freiburg im Breisgau 19511954) 2; R. Gryson (ed.), Esaias. [I. 1-39. II. 40-66] (VL 12; Freiburg im Breisgau 1987-1993, 1993-1997) I, 31; ibidem, II, 1649-1668. 75 Cf. H. von Soden, Das lateinische Neue Testament in Afrika zur Zeit Cyprians. Nach Bibelhandschriften und Väterzeugnissen (ed. A. Harnack – C. Schmidt) (TU 33; Leipzig 1909) 324-343; A. V. Billen, The Old Latin Texts of the Heptateuch (Cambridge, England 1927); E. Valgiglio, Le antiche versioni latine del Nuovo Testamento. Fedeltà e aspetti grammaticali (Koin.[N].ST 11; Napoli 1985) 313-318.

32

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

The following African witnesses will be considered: Tertullian, the Adversus Iudaeos attributed to him, Cyprian and contemporary Pseudo-Cyprian, and, much more briefly the Letter of Barnabas in Latin, Lactantius, and Firmicus. The principal European is Lucifer, preceded by Novatian, Victorinus, and Fortunatianus; these latter three cite much less of Sus-Dn-Bel than Lucifer and, therefore, are treated within the chapter on Fathers who are minor witnesses to the VL book. a. Tertullian of Carthage Tertullian’s (ca. 160 – ca. 220) biblical citations provide precious witness to VL versions in a very early stage of their development. The question about the extent to which he made use of already existing Latin translations remains very much open. If, on the one hand, he tends to cite the same verse in different words for different occasions, on the other hand he transmits plenty of phrases that reappear in Cyprian and other African authors.76 To complicate matters, he also makes direct recourse to the Greek scriptures.77 One must keep in mind the possibility that he made use of partial translations.78 They may have been partial insofar as certain biblical books were lacking, and also partial insofar as important verses of otherwise untranslated books were orally translated for liturgical and catechetical use. Indeed, use of particular verses within Tertullian’s ecclesial circles would bring his attention to them, making him more likely to cite them. Although we are unlikely to ever have a definitive resolution of this matter, the present study will consider data pertinent to the more limited question of whether Tertullian used a written, Latin translation of Sus-Dn-Bel. His citations of that book will be approached with the points of the previous paragraph in mind: He does transmit VL material, but in many instances it is impossible to determine whether he transmits VL with more or less accuracy or rather translates from Greek himself. The VL critical editions usually print his citations in the X line, reserved for 2nd- and 3rd-c. texts that do not fit the other categories.79 P. Capelle, Le texte du Psautier latin en Afrique (CBLa 4; Rome 1913) 1-21. For a brief, current introduction to the question of whether or not Tertullian used pre-existing Latin biblical texts, see M. Graves, “The Biblical Text as Attested in Ancient Literature. The Latin Fathers,” THiB (ed. A. Lange – E. Tov) (1C; Leiden – Boston 2017) 759-763, 759. Thomas O’Malley provides a more thorough treatment in Tertullian and the Bible. Language, Imagery, Exegesis (LCP 21; Noviomagi 1967) 4-8. 77 Capelle, Psautier, 20; H. J. Frede (ed.), Epistula ad Ephesios (VL 24/1; Freiburg im Breisgau 19621964) *30; R. Gryson (ed.), Esaias, I, 16. 78 O’Malley, Tertullian, 5-7. 79 Gn, the series’ first installment, sees in Tertullian the beginning of the European (E) text; see B. Fischer (ed.), Gn, 28*. Examples of the usual treatment of Tertullian, to be placed on the catch-all X line, include: R. Gryson (ed.), Esaias, I, 16; H. J. Frede (ed.), Eph, 30*; R. Gryson (ed.), Apocalypsis Johannis (VL 26/2; Freiburg im Breisgau 2000-2003) 82. 76



Introduction 33

TE sigla80

work

date

car

De carne Christi

206

cor

De corona

208

je

De ieiunio adversus psychicos

210-211

Marc

Adversus Marcionem libri 5

207-211

or

De oratione

198-203

pat

De patientia

before pae

pae

De paenitentia

204

Pra

Adversus Praxean

210-211

res

De resurrectione mortuorum

ca. 211

sco

Scorpiace

ca. 211-212

Dn citation

TE work

3:16-18

sco 8,6 (1083)

7:13-14

Marc 3,7,4 (88,25); 4,39,11 (486,97)

7:13

car 15,1 (272)

9:4. 21

je 10,13 (1269)

9:23

je 7,8 (1264)

10:1-3. 11-12

je 9,3 (1265)

80 Latin witnesses of the patristic tradition are abbreviated in the present work according to the Vetus Latina-Institut’s system as presented in Gryson – Frede – Fischer, Répertoire général (52007). They are cited according to their critical editions as given in the 2013 online update of this work within Vetus Latina-Institut, “Database”. The list of used in this study begins at p. 275.

34

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

Sus-Dn81 allusion

*TE work

Sus 37 (LXXo’)

cor 4,3 (73)

1:17

je 9,2 (1265)

Dn 2, 2:17-18

je 7,7 (1264)

2:34. 44

Marc 3,7,3 (86,17)

3:21. 94

or 15,2 (265); res 58,7 (1006)

3:92

Marc 4,10,12 (138,102); 4,21,9 (270,63); Pra 16,6 (190,34)

4:29

pae 12,7 (188,22); pat 13,4 (104,13)

7:13

Marc 3,24,11 (212,89); 4,10,12 (138,102); 4,10,14 (138,117)

9:1-3

je 7,7 (1264); 10,13 (1269)

b. The Adversus Iudaeos, attributed to Tertullian The Adversus Iudaeos, written by an African in the late 2nd c. and attributed to Tertullian, is usually signaled as inauthentic in the VL editions from Beuron, for the author’s abbreviation is bracketed when referring to “[TE] Jud.” When these editors present the work’s citations among the principal VL witnesses at the top of the page, they usually assign it to the X line reserved for 2nd- and 3rd-c. witnesses that do not fit the other categories.82 Because of the lively debate concerning this work’s unity and authenticity, and because it contains our earliest citations of Dn, this witness will be compared to Tertullian’s uncontested material. In this context, and from the limited perspective of citations of Dn, the question about the work’s authenticity and unity will be raised. The work’s first half will also be given its own short chapter as a witness, indeed the earliest to VL Dn. Here follow its citations of and principal allusions to Sus-Dn-Bel: 81 Tertullian does allude to Bel 31. 39 in *TE je 7,8 (1264) and *TE je 9,5 (1266). These, however, do not follow the Greek text closely enough to include in the study. 82 E.g. Is 45:1 and Is 66:23 where the Adversus Iudaeos provides the X line, and Is 54:15 where it shares the X line with Tertullian’s divergent reading. These three examples have been selected from the first half of the Adversus Iudaeos since the second half sometimes copies citations from Tertullian.



Introduction 35

Dn citation

[TE] Jud

7:13-14

14,4 (39,2)

9:1-2. 21-27

8,4 (15,22)

9:15

8,7 (16,15)

9:25

8,7 (16,15); 8,9 (17,3)83

9:26

13,9 (34,13)

Dn allusion

*[TE] Jud

2:34-35

3,8 (8,9); 14,3 (38,22)

2:44

14,3 (38,22)

9:26-27

8,1 (15,13)

9:26-27

8,8 (16,21)

9:24

8,12 (18,5); 11,11 (32,8)

9:26

8,1 (15,13); 8,8 (16,16); 13,9 (34,13)

9:27

8,8 (16,16); 8,17 (19,13)

c. Cyprian of Carthage and Pseudo-Cyprian Cyprian (ca. 200 – 258) is well known as an early transmitter of the VL.84 Furthermore, he is known to quote the sacred scriptures carefully, as can be seen when he reproduces the same verse word for word in multiple works. One would expect to encounter his usual faithfulness when citing Sus-Dn-Bel, and so it is the case when he cites this material multiple times over multiple works.85 That is not to say, howJerome reproduces [TE] Jud 8,9-13 in HI Dn 3 (881,485). For a recent, brief introduction to Cyprian as witness to the VL, see Graves, “Latin Fathers,” 759-760. 85 See Dn 3:16: CY te 3,10 (98,13), CY ep 58,5 (326,108), CY Fo 11 (204,76), CY ep 6,3 (35,77). See also Bel 5: CY ep 58,5 (327,129), CY Fo 11 (204,82). 83 84

36

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

ever, that these plurally attested verses admit of no variations at all. Rather, as Hans von Soden concluded, there are minor differences due to a certain freedom with which he used his biblical text.86 By preceding a quotation of Sus by the words in Danihelum,87 Cyprian implies the transmission of Sus-Dn together, in conformity with the evidence from the Greek and Latin manuscript tradition. The same presumption must be made for Bel’s transmission along with Sus-Dn in the Cyprianic scriptures. He refers to Daniel, the literary figure, not the book title, when citing Bel. Although this does not explicitly confirm the transmission of the Cyprianic Sus-Dn-Bel all together, it is consistent with that reasonable presumption based on Greek and VL manuscripts. The editors of the Vetus Latina-Institut use a bold K to represent the text type(s) of mid-3rd-c. Carthage, regardless of their authorship. Here follow, first, the authentic Cyprianic citations of and principal allusions to Sus-Dn-Bel: CY sigla

work

date

ep 6

Epistula 6: Sergio et Rogatiano

250

ep 58

Epistula 58: Plebi Thibari

253

ep 61

Epistula 61: Lucio fratri

253

Fo

Ad Fortunatum

252-253

lap

De lapsis

251

op

De opere et eleemosynis

253-256

or

De dominica oratione

250

te

Ad Quirinum (Testimoniorum libri 3)

248-250

un

De catholicae ecclesiae unitate

251-256

86 Neue Testament, 105; Capelle, Psautier, 25; H. J. Frede, “Die Zitate des Neuen Testaments bei den lateinischen Kirchenvätern. Der gegenwärtige Stand ihrer Erforschung und ihre Bedeutung für die griechische Textgeschichte,” Die alten Übersetzungen des Neuen Testaments, die Kirchenväterzitate und Lektionare. Der gegenwärtige Stand ihrer Erforschung und ihre Bedeutung für die griechische Textgeschichte (ed. K. Aland) (ANTF 5; Berlin – New York 1972) 455-478, 463-464. 87 CY te 3,20 (116,61).



Introduction 37

citation

CY work

Sus 1-3

te 3,20 (116,61)

1:1-2

or 25 (106,476)

2:31-35

te 2,17 (53,3)

3:16-18

te 3,10 (98,13); ep 6,3 (35,77); Fo 11 (204,76); ep 58,5 (326,108)

3:25

lap 31 (238,616)

3:37-42

te 3,20 (116,65)

3:51

or 8 (93,115)

4:24 (LXXo’ 4:27)

op 5 (58,95)

6:23-27

te 3,20 (117,77)

7:13-14

te 2,26 (63,3)

9:4-7

lap 31 (239,622)

12:4

te 1,4 (9,10)

Bel 5 (Vg 14:4)

Fo 11 (204,82); ep 58,5 (327,129)

allusion

*CY work

Dn 3

ep 6,3 (34,66); ep 61,2,1 (381,14); ep 61,2,2 (381,20); lap 31 (238,610); un 12 (258,309); or 8 (93,111)

3:25

lap (238,610)

3:50

un 12 (258,306)

12:7

te 1,4 (9,11)

38

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

This study also takes into account those Pseudo-Cyprianic works contemporary to Cyprian. Just as these are grouped together with authentic Cyprianic works in the VL critical editions,88 so too they have been grouped together in the present work. The De pascha computus proves particularly valuable for this study, for it provides a four-verse citation followed by almost perfectly matching citations in the subsequent commentary. The Ad Novatianum provides just two verses, but these are undoubtedly worth examination. A case will be made for literary or theological intervention in the passage, but that is not to say that it was the author’s doing. The Ad Novatianum’s author may well be reproducing these verses as they were generally known in mid-3rd-c. Carthage.89 A cursory examination of the surrounding biblical citations, which are packed densely into the work, shows the literalism typical of the authentic Cyprianic citations. Apc 3:17 provides an excellent initial case study, for it can be compared in its authentic and inauthentic Cyprianic versions.90 The two citations show literary dependence but are not identical. At 1 Jo 2:11 the Pseudo-Cyprianic work differs from Cyprian only by using quia rather than quoniam, a fluctuation present in Cyprian’s own multiple attestation of 1 Jo 2:16.91 Nevertheless, more study remains to be done on the relationship of the biblical citations in Ad Novatianum to authentic Cyprianic ones. Here follow Pseudo-Cyprianic citations of and principal allusions to Sus-DnBel: PS-CY sigla

work

date

mart

De laude martyrii

251-254

Nov

Ad Novatianum

253-256

pa

De pascha computus

243

88 For PS-CY Nov, see W. Thiele (ed.), Sapientia Salomonis (VL 11/1; Freiburg im Breisgau 1977-1985) 113; R. Gryson (ed.), Apc, 84. For PS-CY pa, see, e.g. B. Fischer (ed.), Gn, 28*. For PS-CY mart, see, e.g. W. Thiele (ed.), Sap, 150-151; W. Thiele (ed.), Sirach (Ecclesiasticus). [Pars prior] (VL 11/2; Freiburg im Breisgau 1987-2005) 113. 89 V. Saxer, “Ad Novatianum,” NDPAC 2, 3550-3551; G. F. Diercks, introduction to Ad Novatianum, Novatian, Opera quae supersunt. Nunc primum in unum collecta ad fidem codicum qui adhuc extant necnon adhibitis editionibus veteribus (ed. G. F. Diercks) (CCSL 4; Turnholti 1972) 130-135, 134-135. 90 CY op 14 (63,269) and PS-CY Nov 2,2 (38,4). 91 W. Thiele (ed.), Epistulae Catholicae. Jac, 1-2 Pt, 1-3 Jo, Jud (VL 26/1; Freiburg im Breisgau 19561969) 80*; cf. H. Koch, “Zur pseudo-cyprianischen Schrift Ad Novatianum,” Cyprianische Untersuchungen (AKG[Bo] 4; Bonn 1929) 358-420, 359.



Introduction 39

citation

PS-CY work

7:9-10

Nov 17,1 (150,25)

9:24-27

pa 13 (261,2)

9:26

pa 15 (263,1)

9:27

pa 14 (261,22), (262,2), (262,12)

allusion

*PS-CY work

Dn 3

pa 17 (265,4); mart 12,2 (409,180)

3:19

pa 17 (265,4)

3:23

mart 12 (34,18)

d. Minor witnesses to VL Daniel The so-called Letter of Barnabas, whose true author is unknown, is the earliest of this study’s chapter on minor witnesses to VL Sus-Dn-Bel.92 The Latin translation (siglum BAR) dates to the late 2nd c. or the first half of the 3rd c., and has reached us in a codex unicus. It is a translation from a Greek text dating back to the very late 1st c. or the first few decades of the 2nd c.93 This letter’s rather free Greek citations from Dn 7 may even date to a Jewish or Christian source from the 70s of the 1st c., which was later incorporated into the letter.94 Its few Dn citations (or allusions), however, are quite free in both Greek and Latin and therefore less valuable for VL text criticism than are the more numerous Is ones.95 They include a partial citation of Dn 7:7-8 and allusions to Dn 7:24 and 9:24-25.96 The chapter begins on p. 161. F. Scorza Barcellona, “Barnaba, (epistola di),” NDPAC 1, 710-713, 712; P. Prigent – R. A. Kraft, Épître de Barnabé (SC 172; Paris 1971) 25-27. 94 Prigent – Kraft, Épître de Barnabé, 95, n. 1. 95 J. M. Heer, Die Versio Latina des Barnabasbriefes und ihr Verhältnis zur altlateinischen Bibel. Erstmals untersucht nebst Ausgabe und Glossar des griechischen und lateinischen Textes (Freiburg im Breisgau 1908) xxix-xxxiii; Prigent – Kraft, Épître de Barnabé, 95, n. 1. 96 Dn 7:7-8 in BAR 4,5 (29,12); Dn 7:24 in *BAR 4,4 (29,6); and 9:24-25 in *BAR 16,6 (87,4). 92 93

40

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

Novatian, the Roman theologian and antipope of the mid-3rd c. who died sometime after 251, provides a few allusions to Sus and Dn, namely Sus 2. 44-45 in his De bono pudicitiae (NO pud), and Dn 3:94 in De Trinitate (NO tri).97 Although his biblical citations in general deserve careful study,98 he offers very little for the present study limited to Sus-Dn-Bel. Victorinus (ca. 260 – ca. 304) of Poetovium (present-day Ptuj in Slovenia) wrote his Commentarius in Apocalypsin (VICn Apc) before 304 and his De fabrica mundi (VICn fa) probably even earlier. His commentary survived antiquity in a single, corrupt manuscript, which contains remarkable citations of and allusions to Dn. The citations include portions of Dn 2:38-40. 43-44, 7:18, 11:37; he alludes to Dn 2:3436, 3:1, 7:8, 9:24. 26-27, 11:45.99 L. Caecilius Firmianus Lactantius (ca. 260 – ca. 330) was probably born in Africa and, according to Jerome, taught rhetoric in Nicomedia, in Asia Minor.100 He writes only a handful of citations of VL Sus-Dn-Bel. While in Asia Minor and under the Diocletianic persecution, Lactantius composed the main substance of his Divinae institutiones from 306 to 313 (LAC in). Once the emperor Constantine gained the eastern Roman empire he called Lactantius to Trier, in Gaul. It was there that he probably gave the Divinae institutiones their final form. Eventually he also wrote an abridged version of the same, the Epitome (LAC epit). These works contain numerous citations of Dn 7:13-14, the passage about the Son of Man coming on the clouds in glory. Lactantius frequently employs biblical allusions rather than direct citations, which has made it difficult for scholars to understand his biblical sources. Nevertheless, he is known to rely on Cyprian and others.101 The Sicilian Father Firmicus Maternus (ca. 310 – ca. 360) wrote his De errore profanarum religionum in the mid-4th c. (FIR err). He relies on Cyprian’s Testimonia for his scriptural citations, and Dn is no exception; he reproduces Cyprian’s Dn 2:3135 and 7:13-14.102 Although Firmicus is Sicilian, his text is African since he copies it from Cyprian. Sus 2 in *NO pud 9,2 (121,2); Sus 44-45 in *NO pud 9,5 (121,14); and Dn 3:94 in *NO tri 8 (23,38). The following review and article reviewed provide a helpful introduction to the matter: P. Petitmengin, review of P. Mattei, “Recherches sur la Bible à Rome vers le milieu du IIIe siècle : Novatien et la Vetus Latina,” RBen 105 (1995) 255-279, “Chronica Tertullianea et Cyprianea” REAug 42 (1996) 295-320, 307-308. 99 The citations are Dn 2:38-40 in VICn Apc 21,3 (120,15), Dn 2:43-44 in VICn Apc 21,3 (120,19) and VICn Apc 21,3 (120,23), Dn 7:18 in VICn Apc 21,3 (120,23), and Dn 11:37 in VICn Apc 13,3 (106,9). The allusions are Dn 2:34-36 in *VICn Apc 21,3 (118,9), Dn 3:1 (and other verses of this chapter referring to the golden statue) in *VICn Apc 13,4 (108,8) and *VICn Apc 13,4 (108,16), Dn 7:8 in *VICn Apc 13,2 (106,19), 9:24. 26 in *VICn fa 8 (146,7), Dn 9:27 in *VICn Apc 13,4 (108,14), and Dn 11:45 in *VICn Apc 13,4 (108,16). 100 V. Loi – B. Amata, “Lattanzio,” NDPAC 2, 2747-2750, 2747. 101 Uwe Fröhlich provides a helpful introduction to the value of Lactantius’s biblical citations for VL textual criticism, along with numerous bibliographical references, in “Einleitung,” Epistula ad Corinthios I (VL 22; Freiburg im Breisgau 1995-1998) 9-240, 192-193. 102 Dn 2:31-35 in FIR err 20,4 (123), and Dn 7:13-14 in FIR err 24,6 (134). 97 98



Introduction 41

Fortunatianus (ca. 310 – ca. 368) of Aquileia in northern Italy wrote his Commentarii in Evangelia (FO-A) during the reign of Constantius II (337-361). Except for some fragments, it was lost to the world until the recent discovery of a manuscript, published in 2017.103 Fortunatianus cites a portion of Dn 3:91 and makes free citations of 3:92; he repeats the brief citation of Dn 9:27 from Mt 24:15 and alludes to Sus and Dn 3.104 All of these are short, none surpassing ten words of biblical text. Nevertheless, one may be surprised how much information is extracted from them. e. Lucifer of Cagliari The sheer quantity and length of Lucifer’s (ca. 320 – 370) citations, along with their clear correspondence to other VL material, show that he copied them from his codices rather than from memory. Of Sus-Dn-Bel he inserts most of two chapters: Sus and Dn 7. That these chapters should be treated together is confirmed when he explains that he is quoting from Danihel liber and proceeds to cite Sus.105 Gerard Diercks summarizes the research on Lucifer’s biblical citations, noting that for many books, including Dn, no study has been published.106 For the books that have indeed been studied, diverse conclusions have been reached, from Lucifer’s shared variants with the Lucianic LXX for 3-4 Rg, to his use of Cyprian’s text for Sap and Sir, to correlations with various manuscripts for various other books. Although arguments have been proposed for and against Lucifer himself being the translator of his biblical citations from the Greek,107 this is unlikely in the case of Sus-Dn-Bel. When comparing his citations to VL 176, a closely related witness, it will be argued that Lucifer represents an older stratum of this text type.108 Scholars have suggested an early African origin for VL 175, VL 176, and VL 177, well before the Sardinian.109 Fortunatianus of Aquileia, Commentarii in Evangelia (ed. L. J. Dorfbauer) (CSEL 103; Berlin – Boston 2017). 104 Dn 3:91 in FO-A (132,486); Dn 3:92 in FO-A (132,488) and FO-A (143,776); Dn 9:27 (from Mt 24:15) in FO-A (212,2386); allusions to Dn 3 in *FO-A (197,2068) and *FO-A (157,1110); Sus 2 in *FO-A (213,2415); and Sus in *FO-A (217,2494). 105 LUC Ath 2,9 (92,14). 106 Introduction to Lucifer of Cagliari, Opera quae supersunt. Ad fidem duorum codicum qui adhuc extant necnon adhibitis editionibus veteribus (ed. G. F. Diercks) (CCSL 8; Turnholti 1978) i-cxxxi, cviicix. There are now the two brief studies of VL Sus-Dn-Bel, including Lucifer’s texts, by Cañas Reíllo, in “Daniel. Vetus Latina,” and “Daniel, Additions to. Latin”. Also postdating the critical edition is Antonio Piras’s general study of Lucifer’s use of sacred scripture; see “Bibbia”. More recently, Tuukka Kauhanen published Lucifer of Cagliari and the Text of 1-2 Kings (SCSt 68; Atlanta 2018). 107 Piras, “Bibbia,” 135. For his argument against Lucifer having translated his New Testament, see ibidem, 132-134. See also Kauhanen, Lucifer of Cagliari, 7-8. 108 See the section beginning at p. 173. 109 See the treatment of the manuscripts in the Status quaestionis, p. 18. 103

42

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

One can look to Lucifer’s twice-quoted passages to confirm how faithfully he reproduces the text available to him. Unfortunately, with respect to Sus-Dn, the double citations occur in close proximity to one another. It would be more helpful if it were possible to compare his Sus-Dn citations over multiple works since then he would be less likely, if adapting the text, to change it in the same way each time.110 When Lucifer quotes Dn 7:25 soon after the much-longer citation of Dn 7:1-27, he does adapt one word to serve his polemics. Namely, he changes uerba aduersus altissimum Deum loquetur from the prior, longer quotation to aduersus altissimum Domini loquetur in the shorter one.111 Since the polemic is against Emperor Constantius II, who is alleged to deny that Christ is true son of the true God, Lucifer needs the ambiguous altissimum Deum to refer to one specific person of the holy Trinity, Jesus Christ. By changing this to altissimum Domini he accomplishes this, thereby aligning Constantius with the apocalyptic, evil king of Dn 7:24-25.112 Still, it is noteworthy that he did not change the text in the principal citation. Although the attentive reader was sure to notice the changes, they were modest ones for their day. Furthermore, Lucifer allows the reader to make his own judgment by first giving the version he finds in his manuscript, then ever so slightly adjusting the text as part of his interpretation. Accordingly, for the purposes of the present study, the longer citation is taken as representing the text from which Lucifer copied and, ergo, the one circulating in at least one biblical manuscript. A few observations on the Greek critical edition should be included here as well. Ziegler – Munnich follow the now-superseded edition by Wilhelm von Hartel.113 Diercks’s newer edition improves the text, for example, by abandoning cuius at Dn 7:20 in favor of the manuscripts’ cui, which in turn aligns with different Greek witnesses. Nevertheless, Diercks has his critics, and his confident presentation of the relation between the two extant manuscripts as settled has been accepted by some, questioned by others.114 In the treatment of Lucifer’s texts it will be argued that in two other instances the manuscripts should be accepted against all the editions, even Diercks’s: the manuscripts’ uolucres at Dn 7:6 and sedit at 7:26. Jer 3:15 constitutes an example outside of Sus-Dn-Bel in which he cites a verse over two works in a textually consistent manner: LUC Ath 1,2 (5,26), LUC Ath 1,22 (38,9), LUC Ath 2,3 (80,12), LUC par 11 (216,50) and LUC par 22 (237,20). 111 LUC par 30 (253,58) and LUC par 30 (254,18), respectively. 112 On the priority of the longer quotations in these instances see Piras, “Bibbia,” 134. Cf. Osburn, “Methodology,” 322-323. 113 Lucifer of Cagliari, Opuscula (ed. W. von Hartel) (CSEL 14; Vindobonae 1886). 114 Diercks, introduction to Lucifer of Cagliari, Opera, XLV-LII. Giovanni Castelli helpfully summarizes the edition’s reception in “Lucifero di Cagliari e la critica,” Koin.(N) 22/1-2 (1998) 21-65, 31-33. He concludes that the importance of Diercks’s edition lies more in its thorough introduction than its critical text. By contrast, Michael Winterbottom considers the text “as near flawless as one could hope to find” in his review of G. F. Diercks, Luciferi Calaritani Opera quae supersunt. Ad fidem duorum codicum qui adhuc extant necnon adhibitis editionibus veteribus (CCSL 8; Turnholti 1978), JThS n.s. 31/1 (1980) 209-211, 209. Antonio Piras, pointing out the textual complexity of Lucifer’s biblical citations in particular, has called for them to be re-edited; “Bibbia,” 140. 110



Introduction 43

Another difficult passage of the edition affects Sus 59, where Lucifer first writes the verse awkwardly (according to the edition, following both manuscripts), without a finite verb in the main clause: manens etenim (μένει γάρ) angelus Dei gladium habens ad secandum te medium, ut uos perdat. After that version from his longer citation, he quotes the verse a second time, where etenim has been replaced by the smoother est.115 Michael Winterbottom advocates for a correction of the edition’s manens etenim, which he says derived from *manens est enim.116 Of course, *manet enim matches μένει γάρ perfectly and can also explain a derivation manens etenim. In any case, Lucifer’s use of the present participle with sum is so common that Piras considers it an inexplicable tic; he even shows that the idiosyncrasy sometimes contaminates the Father’s biblical text.117 That would explain why he alone among VL and Greek witnesses has manens (est) rather than manet. In this doubtful case, Diercks did well to follow the manuscripts’ reading, difficult though it is, for the difficult reading could date back to Lucifer himself. Here follow Lucifer’s citations (there are no helpful allusions) of Sus-Dn-Bel: LUC sigla

work

date

Ath

De Athanasio libri 2

357-358

par

De non parcendo in Deum delinquentibus

357-361

citation

LUC work

Sus 20-21

Ath 2,7 (90,59)

Sus 22-23

Ath 2,8 (91,20)

Sus 28-41

Ath 2,8 (91,36)

Sus 42-49

Ath 2,9 (92,15)

Sus 51-62

Ath 2,10 (94,8)

Sus 52-53

Ath 2,10 (95,7)

115 116 117

LUC Ath 2,11 (94,22) and LUC Ath 2,11 (96,37), respectively. Review of Diercks, Luciferi Opera, 211. Piras, “Bibbia,” 143.

44

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

citation

LUC work

Sus 55

Ath 2,10 (95,35)

Sus 59

Ath 2,10 (96,37)

7:1-27

par 30 (252,5)

7:25

par 30 (254,18)

f. Overview of patristic citations The following table compiles the works from the preceding sections and orders them chronologically.118 sigla

work

date

region

[TE] Jud 1-8

Adversus Iudaeos, 1-8

ca. 197

North Africa

TE or

De oratione

198-203

North Africa

TE pat

De patientia

before pae

North Africa

TE pae

De paenitentia

204

North Africa

TE car

De carne Christi

206

North Africa

TE cor

De corona

208

North Africa

TE Marc

Adversus Marcionem libri 5

207-211

North Africa

TE je

De ieiunio adversus psychicos

210-211

North Africa

TE Pra

Adversus Praxean

210-211

North Africa

TE res

De resurrectione mortuorum

ca. 211

North Africa

118

A full list of abbreviations for ancient literature is available in an appendix, p. 275.



Introduction 45

sigla

work

date

region

TE sco

Scorpiace

ca. 211-212

North Africa

[TE] Jud 9-14

Adversus Iudaeos, 9-14

3rd c.?

North Africa

PS-CY pa

De pascha computus

243

North Africa

CY te

Ad Quirinum (Testimoniorum libri 3)

248-250

North Africa

CY ep 6

Epistula 6: Sergio et Rogatiano 250

North Africa

CY or

De dominica oratione

250

North Africa

CY lap

De lapsis

251

North Africa

PS-CY mart

De laude martyrii

251-254

North Africa

CY Fo

Ad Fortunatum

252-253

North Africa

CY ep 58

Epistula 58: Plebi Thibari

253

North Africa

CY ep 61

Epistula 61: Lucio fratri

253

North Africa

CY un

De catholicae ecclesiae unitate

251-256

North Africa

CY op

De opere et eleemosynis

253-256

North Africa

PS-CY Nov

Ad Novatianum

253-256

North Africa

BAR

Letter of Barnabas

late 2nd - mid-3rd c.

North Africa

NO pud

De bono pudicitiae

mid-3rd c.

Rome

NO tri

De Trinitate

mid-3rd c.

Rome

VICn Apc

Commentarius in Apocalypsin

before 304

Balkans

VICn fa

De fabrica mundi

before 304

Balkans

LAC in

Divinarum institutionum

304-311

Asia Minor

46

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

sigla

work

date

region

LAC epit

Epitome divinarum institutionum

314-321

Asia Minor

FIR err

De errore profanarum religionum

343-350

South Italy

FO-A

Commentarii in Evangelia

337-361

North Italy

LUC Ath

De Athanasio libri 2

357-358

South Italy (but written in exile)

LUC par

De non parcendo in Deum delinquentibus

357-361

South Italy (but written in exile)

5. The Greek Vorlagen 5.1. The two Greek text types A brief introduction to the Greek texts of Sus-Dn-Bel is in order since the VL translates these. Only those aspects will be highlighted that most pertain to the present study.119 Sus-Dn-Bel is unique among biblical books in that the Greek-speaking Christian church first used the Septuagintal text (LXXo’) but then almost universally gave it up in favor of the revised one attributed to Theodotion (LXXθ’), a shift that apparently took place around the turn of the 3rd c. Not surprisingly, manuscripts witnessing to LXXθ’ abound, whereas we possess but one (virtually) complete LXXo’ manuscript. So too, the multitude of secondary witnesses swell the LXXθ’ apparatus but are scarcer for the ill-fated LXXo’. Like the Masoretic text, both Greek text types have twelve chapters for Dn. They differ most in Dn 4-6, where LXXo’ has expansions that have sometimes been explained as midrashic or resulting from an Aramaic original different from the Masoretic one.120 In any case, it seems that the expansions in Dn 4-6 within our principal

119 For thorough introductions, see J. Ziegler – O. Munnich – D. Fraenkel (ed.), Sus-Dn-Bel, 9-169; R. T. McLay, “Daniel (Old Greek and Theodotion),” T&T Clark Companion to the Septuagint (ed. J. K. Aitken) (London – New Delhi – New York – Sydney 2015) 544-554; Lahey, “Additions”. 120 McLay, “Daniel,” 545.



Introduction 47

witness to LXXo’, Greek 967, result from interpolation from LXXθ’.121 For Sus, the additions to Dn 3, and Bel, we have no extant Semitic original. Some believe that such an original existed at least for some of this material, but others dismiss such claims.122 Of the additions, Sus exhibits the most changes from LXXo’ to the revision in LXXθ’, Bel fewer, and the Dn 3 additions fewer yet.123 Overall, Sus-Dn-Bel LXXo’, probably the product of multiple translators’ work, uses a smoother Greek style; LXXθ’, itself the completion of proto-Theodotion’s work, shows more Semitic interference and concern for literality. Despite the reliance of LXXθ’ on LXXo’ for the additions, it shows independence from LXXo’ for Dn.124 5.2. Editions The same edition provides the critical text of both types on facing pages: Munnich’s LXXo’ on the left, and Ziegler’s LXXθ’ on the right.125 The order is the traditional one for LXXθ’, Sus-Dn-Bel, with the traditional chapter order within Dn. LXXo’ has been aligned with that order even though its principal witness runs DnBel-Sus and has Dn 7-8 inserted between Dn 4-5. LXXo’ has two apparatuses below the critical text: first the primary one, and then the Hexaplaric one below it. The single apparatus of LXXθ’ contains more data than the other two combined. LXXθ’ variants discovered since Ziegler’s 1954 elaboration of the apparatus are collated by Fraenkel and listed in an appendix to the introduction.126 The Göttingen edition assigns a capital letter to each uncial manuscript and a number in Arabic numerals to the minuscules and papyri.127 Most of the manuscripts also contain Ez and are described in that volume, whereas the Sus-Dn-Bel introductions describe those not treated in the Ez volume.128 The manuscript groupings have also been followed in the present work.129 For example, Greek 230’ represents two minuscules, Greek 230-541; Greek L represents seven manuscripts of the Lucianic recension, Greek 22-36-48-51-96-231-763. Sometimes manuscripts belonging to the 121 One can identify these by comparing the manuscript to LXXθ’ and the MT. The agreement of these three in Dn 4-6 is R. Timothy McLay’s criterion for interpolations from LXXθ’ into the other Greek textual tradition. See “The Old Greek Translation of Daniel IV-VI and the Formation of the Book of Daniel,” VT 55 (2005) 304-323, 323; The OG and Th Versions of Daniel (SCSt 43; Atlanta, GA 1996) 217. 122 Lahey, “Additions,” 559-560. 123 J. Schüpphaus, “Das Verhältnis von LXX- und Theodotion-Text in den apokryphen Zusätzen zum Danielbuch,” ZAW 83/1 (1971) 49-72. 124 Heinz-Dieter Neef calls LXXθ’ Dn “eine eigenständige, um Konsistenz in der Wortwahl bemühete, sehr sorgfältige Neuübersetzung von [MT-Dn], vielleicht aus Palästina, nicht jedoch eine Revision von [LXXo’-Dn];” in “Daniel / Das Buch Daniel. Einleitung,” Septuaginta Deutsch. Erläuterungen und Kommentare. Band 2, Psalmen bis Danielschriften (Stuttgart 2011) 3016. 125 J. Ziegler – O. Munnich – D. Fraenkel (ed.), Sus-Dn-Bel, 216-407. 126 J. Ziegler – O. Munnich – D. Fraenkel (ed.), Sus-Dn-Bel, 170-214. 127 Those pertinent for this study are listed at p. 271. 128 J. Ziegler (ed.), Ez, 7-11; J. Ziegler – O. Munnich – D. Fraenkel (ed.), Sus-Dn-Bel, 9-20, 121-124. 129 They are reproduced at p. 273.

48

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

same group but without their own abbreviation are referenced, in which case a hyphen signals their general affinity in Sus-Dn-Bel. So, if only Greek 36 and Greek 96 of the seven manuscripts in Greek L share a reading, they are hyphenated as Greek 36-96. Manuscripts from different groups have no hyphen between them. A host of secondary witnesses complement the LXX manuscript evidence, not least of which the VL. Besides it, there are translations into Sahidic and Bohairic Coptic, Syriac, Ethiopian, Arabic, and Armenian.130 The Greek Fathers constitute another important source of data, since they frequently cite the LXX.131 I have followed Ziegler’s abbreviation system for Greek Fathers, presented in the Ez volume,132 but have relied on the most recent editions available.133

130 131 132 133

For the abbreviations, see p. 274. J. Ziegler – O. Munnich – D. Fraenkel (ed.), Sus-Dn-Bel, 93-96, 125-129. J. Ziegler (ed.), Ez, 84-85. The abbreviations, along with the edition used, are listed in appendix for ancient literature, p. 275.

Chapter 2 TERTULLIAN

1. Citing Latin or translating from Greek? Did Tertullian work from an already-existing Latin biblical translation? That simple question has vexed scholars for years and is likely to do so for years to come.1 A few observations will clarify the basic question in more detail than when it was raised in the previous chapter’s brief characterization of Tertullian’s biblical texts.2 First, the sheer number of biblical citations itself — that is, the saturation of Tertullian’s prose with biblical quotes — is suggestive.3 That Tertullian had the Latin formulations so readily at hand suggests at the least that he was thoroughly versed in Latin expression of the Bible. Although this may have been accomplished orally through worship and catechesis, the support of a written text would help to explain the phenomenon. It is difficult, however, to ascertain whether Tertullian’s consistent renderings are due to his being acquainted with them in written form or in oral form. Thomas O’Malley cautiously opines that his source may have been a written text: Thus far, there is no doubt but that Tertullian is in contact with Latin renderings of some parts of the scriptures. While the most probable view of these is that they were not merely oral, but written, the texts upon which Tertullian reflects are most often key texts, isolated sections of the Scripture (like the Johannine prologue), or texts frequently appealed to, like I Cor. 7.39.4

If Tertullian did have written texts, there is a good chance that they did not cover the entire Bible. Would Tertullian’s contemporaries have placed a high priority on producing or acquiring a Latin translation of Dn? Although Dn is not as important as the Gospels, it surely stood out as one of the more important Old Testament books for Christians of Tertullian’s era. He does not give it particular attention over other 1 O’Malley rightly signals both the importance and the difficulty of the question: “It is of considerable interest to know what Tertullian owed to the work of translation in the church of his time and area, and what is due to his innovation, in order to place him more accurately in the development of Christian Latin. It is vain to suppose that this can ever be done with any great accuracy; the evidence is simply insufficient;” in Tertullian, 2. 2 P. 32. 3 “With all the freedom with which Tertullian makes his citations, the very bulk of them leads one to suspect that he is not always the active translator.” O’Malley, Tertullian, 2. 4 O’Malley, Tertullian, 62.

50

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

books, but his contemporaries make frequent use of it, as with Hippolytus’s commentary on the book. The verses Tertullian cites often coincide with those cited by other early Fathers, being the sort of “key texts” that O’Malley considers the most likely to be fixed, but that does not necessarily mean the entire book was translated. In any case, the question of whether or not Tertullian was in contact with a written, Latin Dn can practically be set aside in favor of an alternate one: How fixed is the language of his Dn as expressed in his citations? The evidence to answer such a question is scarce, for it requires verses cited as least twice; we are thereby limited to Dn 7:13-14 and a few shorter snippets. It should be noted that the fixity of a biblical text does not imply consistency of translation techniques throughout the same. The VL (and Jerome’s versions) abounds with fluctuations in the vocabulary and techniques employed, even within a single witness. In fact, the apparently arbitrary use of the different synonyms for the same Greek word, under certain conditions, argues in favor of fixity. Namely, this applies if the variety of Latin synonyms is from one passage to another, whereas individual passages consistently employ the same term. Consider 1 Cor 7:6 and 7:25: in the former the pairing ἐπιταγή | imperium is attested by Tertullian, Cyprian, and many others.5 In the latter, one encounters impressive VL uniformity for ἐπιταγή | praeceptum, including a citation and two allusions by Tertullian.6 Evidence such as this is helpful for determining just how fixed, or ad hoc, was Tertullian’s text for a given passage or book. Now that these preliminary observations have been made, the question of the fixity of Tertullian’s text may be set aside until the end of the section on his vocabulary.7 2. Text-critical analysis 2.1. Relation to other VL witnesses This table contains basic information on each witness referenced in the subsequent “table of agreements.” The two manuscripts are listed first, followed by authors’ sigla in alphabetical order. North African authors account for roughly half of the works, and European ones for about half as well. They range from the late 2nd to the 5th c.

TE mon 11,7 (182,54); *TE mon 14,2 (194,8); CY te 3,32 (127,24). Cf. 1 Cor 7:6 in Vetus Latina-In“Database”. 6 TE cas 4,1 (82,6). Cf. *TE cor 4,6 (76); *TE mon 11,9 (184,60). Cf. 1 Cor 7:25 in Vetus Latina-Institut, “Database”. 7 P. 88. 5

stitut,



Tertullian 51

sigla

author

work

date

region

Sus-Dn-Bel

VL 175

5th c.

North Italy

Dn 2:18-33, 9:2510:11, 11:16-23. 35-39

VL 176

early 9th c.

Saint Gall, Switzerland

Sus 1-64, Dn 1:1-9, 3:36-60, 4:20-8:17, 8:21-9:2, 9:6-7. 15-16, 9:22-10:11. 16-21, 11:6-12:13, Bel 1-42

411

North Africa

7:9-10. 13-14

De Trinitate liber 2

AU tri 2

Augustine of Hippo

PS-AU alt

Pseudo-Augus- Altercatio tine Ecclesiae et Synagogae

438-late 5th c.

North Africa?8

7:13-14, 12:4

CHRO Mt

Chromatius of Aquileia

Tractatus in Matthaeum

397-408

North Italy

2:22, 7:9-10, 10:2

CY te

Cyprian of Carthage

Ad Quirinum (Testimoniorum libri 3)

248-250

North Africa

Sus 1-3, Dn 2:3135, 3:16-18. 37-42, 6:23-27, 7:13-14, 12:4

PS-CY Nov

PseudoCyprian

Ad Novatianum 253-257?

North Africa?

7:9-10

EVA-G

Evagrius Gallicus

Altercatio legis ca. 430 inter Simonem Iudaeum et Theophilum Christianum

Gaul

7:13-14

8 Jocelyn Hillgarth makes the educated guess of North Africa in her introduction to Altercatio Ecclesiae et Synagogae (CCSL 69A; Turnhout 1999) 3-24, 8-9. The preceding pages advocate for dating the work to the 5th c., setting 438 as the terminus post quem.

52

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

sigla

author

work

date

region

Sus-Dn-Bel

FIR err

Iulius Firmicus Maternus Siculus

De errore profanarum religionum

343-350

South Italy

2:31-35, 7:13-14

PS-FIR con

PseudoFirmicus

Consultationes Zacchei christiani et Apollonii philosophi

408-410

Gaul?

7:13, 11:36-37

HI Dn

Jerome of Stridon

Commentariorum in Danielem

407

Palestine

passim

Adversus Iovinianum libri 2

393

Palestine

1:3-4, *10:3, 10:11

3rd c.?; late 4th c.?

Gaul?

Sus 20. 52-53. 56, Dn 2:34, 2:41-45, 3:91-92, *7:13, 7:20-25. 27, 8:1112. 23-25, 9:27, 12:3-4. 9-10. 13, Bel 5

HI Jov IR

Irenaeus of Lyons

Adversus haereses

LUC par

Lucifer of Cagliari

De non parcen- ca. 359 do in Deum delinquentibus

South Italy (but written in exile)

7:1-27

RUF Eus

Rufinus of Aquileia

Eusebii Historia Ecclesiastica

402-403

Italy

7:9-10. 13-14

Origenis Commentarius in Epistulam ad Romanos

405-406

Italy

Sus 56, 3:86, 7:910, 9:5-7

RUF Rm



Tertullian 53

sigla

author

work

date

region

Sus-Dn-Bel

TE Marc

Tertullian of Carthage

Adversus Marcionem

207-211

North Africa

7:13-14

[TE] Jud 9-14

PseudoTertullian?

Adversus Iudaeos, 9-14

3rd c.?

North Africa

7:13-14

PS-VIG tri 11

PseudoVigilius of Thapsus

De trinitate, liber 11. Professio arriana et confessio catholica

late 4th - early 5th c.

North Africa?

7:13-14

TY reg

Tyconius

Liber regularum

ca. 380

North Africa

7:10

Vg9

Jerome of Stridon

Vulgate DnSus-Bel

early 390s

Palestine

Dn-Sus-Bel

The following table illustrates the continuation of Tertullian’s readings within the VL tradition. The “witnesses” column employs the abbreviations listed above. The Vorlage column represents extant Greek readings; Tertulian’s relationship to these will be discussed below.10

vs 7:10

9 10

Vorlage

Tertullian

agreements

witnesses

παρειστήκεισαν (Greek 230, ClemRom., etc.)

adsistebant

ad- / assistebant

PS-CY Nov 17,1 (151,4); CHRO Mt 54A,10 (634,265); AU tri 2,33 (124,14); RUF Rm 9,41 (772, 22); Vg

The Vg is only cited when considered pertinent. See this chapter’s section “Relation to LXXo’ and LXXθ’,” p. 59.

54

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

Vorlage

Tertullian

agreements

witnesses

7:10

ἐλειτούργουν (Greek 230, ClemRom., etc.)

apparebant

apparebant

TY reg 5 (60,2)

7:13

ὡς υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου (LXX)

tamquam filius hominis

tamquam filius hominis

RUF Eus 1,2,25 (27,13)

7:13

υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου ἐρχόμενος· καὶ ἦλθεν ἕως τοῦ παλαιοῦ τῶν ἡμερῶν (Iust.)

filius hominis ueniens × uenit usque ad ueterem dierum

filius hominis ueniens × uenit usque ad ueterem dierum

CY te 2,26 (63,3); FIR err 24,6 (134); EVA-G 6 (291,224); PS-AU alt (41,425)

7:13

ἐρχόμενος· καὶ ἦλθεν (Iust.)

ueniens × uenit

ueniens × uenit

[TE] Jud 14,4 (39,2); CY te 2,26 (63,3); LUC par 30 (253,33); EVA-G 6 (291,224); FIR err 24,6 (134); PS-AU alt (41,425)

7:13

τοῦ παλαιοῦ τῶν ἡμερῶν (Iust.)

ueterem dierum

ueterem dierum

[TE] Jud 14,4 (39,2); CY te 2,26 (63,3); FIR err 24,6 (134); *IR 4,20,11 (662,290); AU tri 2,33 (124,17); PS-VIG tri 3,93 (54,836); PS-FIR con 2,6 (46,106); EVA-G 6 (291,224); PS-AU alt (41,425)

vs



Tertullian 55

vs 7:14

Vorlage

Tertullian

agreements

witnesses

ἐξουσία αὐτοῦ ἐξουσία αἰώνιος, ἥτις οὐ μὴ ἀρθῇ, καὶ ἡ βασιλεία αὐτοῦ, ἥτις οὐ μὴ φθαρῇ (φθαρῇ] διαφθαρήσεται LXXθ’). (LXXo’)

potestas eius

potestas eius

aeterna, quae non auferetur, et regnum eius, quod non corrumpetur

aeterna, quae non auferetur, et regnum eius,

CY te 2,26 (63,6); FIR err 24,6 (135); PS-AU alt (41,428)

(CY Var + quod)

non corrumpetur

potestas illius (Var eius) aeterna quae non auferetur et regnum eius quod non corrumpetur

[TE] Jud 14,4 (39,3)

potestas eius (potestas) (PS-VIG tri: Var om. potestas) aeterna, quae non auferetur, et regnum eius, quod non corrumpetur

PS-VIG tri 11,5 (55,6); HI Dnlem 2 (848,697); Vg

10:2

πενθῶν (LXX)

lugens

lugens

VL 175; VL 176; CHRO Mt 17,3 (271,103)

10:3

ἄρτον ἐπιθυμιῶν (LXX)

panem suauem

panem suauem

*HI Jov 1,15 (308B)

10:3

κρέα καὶ οἶνος οὐκ εἰσῆλθον εἰς τὸ στόμα μου (Chr.)

caro et uinum non introierunt in os meum

caro et uinum non introierunt in os meum

HI Dnlem 3 (889,634); Vg

56

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

vs 10:11

Vorlage

Tertullian

agreements

witnesses

ἄνθρωπος ἐλεεινὸς εἶ (LXXo’)

Daniel, homo es miserabilis

Daniel, homo (~) miserabilis es

HI Jov 2,15 (308C)

There is little to indicate that later authors took up Tertullian’s textual form of Dn. The most significant alignments with Tertullian’s texual form occur with respect to Dn 7:13-14, where Cyprian uses a similar text, which is then reproduced by his imitators.11 The passage’s Christological import, with its Son of Man coming on the clouds, assured its place in patristic interpretation; Latin Fathers from Tertullian onwards cite it constantly. Two key phrases first appearing in Tertullian’s transmission of this passage are tamquam filius hominis ueniens uenit (ὡς υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου ἐρχόμενος καὶ ἦλθεν) and uetus dierum (ὁ παλαιός τῶν ἡμερῶν).12 Although Tertullian’s pairing ὡς | tamquam in this passage did not gain currency, the rest of that phrase (filius hominis ueniens uenit), and uetus dierum did indeed. It is noteworthy that filius hominis ueniens uenit persists even in Lucifer’s day, despite Lucifer’s usual alignment with LXXθ’. As for tamquam, which consistently precedes that phrase for Tertullian, it survives in our literature only in a single occurrence within Rufinus’s translation of the Ecclesiastical History.13 On the other hand, Tertullian’s uetus dierum gained significant currency, though not exclusivity, before being displaced by Jerome’s antiquus dierum. The pairing of παλαιός | uetus is not completely obvious, given the well-attested alternatives antiquus and uetustus.14 There are a few coincidences with Jerome’s writings as well as his Vg. At both Dn 7:14 and 10:3, however, the translations are straightforward enough that it may be pure coincidence that they agree. For the convergences between Jerome’s Adversus Iovinianum and Tertullian’s De ieiunio, Jerome’s indebtedness to the latter work was noted already in the 18th-c. edition reprinted by Migne.15 Still, Tertullian’s dependence See the section on the analysis of Cyprian’s agreements with other VL witnesses, p. 111. Justin Martyr provides the reading ὁ παλαιός τῶν ἡμερῶν, here adapted to the nominative case; see p. 66. Quasi filius hominis was common even before the Vg ensured its continuation: CY te 2,26 (63,3); IR 4,20,11 (662,290); FIR err 24,6 (134). Cf. RUF sy 32 (167,10); PS-VIG tri 11,5 (55,2); AU tri 2,33 (124,17); PS-FIR con 2,6 (46,106); EVA-G 6 (291,224); PS-AU alt (41,425); PS-VIG Var 1,47 (58). 14 E.g., Dn 7:13 uetustus dierum in CY (Var) te 2,26 (63,3); LAC in 4,12,12 (312,9); LAC in 4,21,1 (367,11); LUC par 30 (253,33); HIL Ps 144,1 (268,22); RUF sy 32 (167,10); RUF Eus 1,2,25 (27,13); *HI Dncom 2 (845,622); *HI Dncom 2 (848,703); *HI Dncom 4 (932,414); CHRY lap 12 (291,77); AU ci 18,34,6 (628); AU leg 2,12 (100,413); CYR:CO 1,5 (208,23); PS-VIG Var 1,47 (58); VIG-T sol 4 (215,118). One finds Dn 7:13 antiquus/anticus dierum in LAC in 4,12,15 (313,16); LAC in 4,12,15 (313,17); LAC epit 42,4 (63,9); PS-VIG tri 11,5 (55,2). Cf. also Dn 7:9. 22, which are much less frequently cited but also contain the expression. 15 Jerome of Stridon, “Adversus Jovinianum,” Opera. Tomus II (ed. D. Vallarsi – S. Maffei) (Venetiis 2 1767) 237-384, 346E; Idem, “Adversus Jovinianum,” Opera Omnia. Tomus II (ed. D. Vallarsi – S. Maffei – J.-P. Migne) (PG 23; Parisiis 1845) 211-338, 306D. 11

12

13



Tertullian 57

on LXXo’ Dn 10:11 and its plus ἄνθρωπος has misled editors up to the present day to identify Jerome’s Daniel, homo miserabilis es as alluding to Dn 9:23 or 9:22-23 instead.16 Understandably, the corresponding card was therefore misfiled in the card box at Beuron. 2.2. Excursus: Plato’s Phaedo in the De anima Let us consider two of Tertullian’s passages dependent on Plato’s Phaedo before his biblical citations. They are presented in the tables at the end of this subsection. The first is truly a citation, with minimal adaptation in Latin; the second is an allusion that follows Plato so closely that nearly every Latin expression corresponds to a Greek one. Each provides helpful context concerning Tertullian’s approach to Greek-Latin translation. Firstly, the extent to which each passage follows the Greek can be found among Tertullian’s biblical citations as well. Tertullian provides true citations and close allusions, as with the two examples below, as well as loose allusions. When he takes liberties with the word order, the type spacing has been widened for re-ordered equivalents, to aid in identifying the Greek-Latin parallels. Secondly, these non-biblical translations are helpful for providing examples of Tertullian’s translations for Greek words concerning the mind and its operations. These are italicized in the tables below. The semantic field does not admit of easy, fixed Latin equivalents, yet Tertullian’s vocabulary here largely matches that of his citations of Dn. The topic will be treated at greater length in the section on his vocabulary (p. 75). Similarities between these passages and the biblical ones preponderate in favor of Tertullian’s being their translator, although not to the point where a decisive judgment may be made. Thirdly, the syntax is of interest. For example, the Hellenism in recogitando for ἐν τῷ διανοεῖσθαι occurs in the second text. In + the gerund is somewhat normal in Tertullian’s prose, but much more frequently he omits the preposition.17 Surely the Greek preposition influenced its direct Latin equivalent. The same phenomenon is well-documented in VL texts.18

16 Jerome of Stridon, “Adversus Jovinianum (1767),” 349D; Idem, “Adversus Jovinianum (1845),” 308C; Idem, Obras completas. VIII. Tratados apologéticos (ed. M.-A. Marcos Casquero – M. Marcos Celestino) (BAC 685; Madrid 2009) 333. This edition, which translates that of Migne, expands the “Dn 9:23” of its source to include the previous verse as well. 17 Examples of in + the gerund: TE nat 1,10 (27,29) in sacrificando; TE ap 14,1 (112,1) in sacrificando; TE or 27 (273) in orando; TE pat 3,11 (68,37) in praecipiendo… sustinendo. 18 Rönsch, Itala, 450-451. For Early Latin precedents see S. Ball Platner, “Notes on the Use of Gerund and Gerundive in Plautus and Terence,” AJP 14/4 (1893) 483-490, 485.

58

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

TE an 18,1 (806)

Pl. Phd. 65a-65b19

quid tum erga ipsam prudentiae possessionem? utrumne impedimentum erit corpus, an non, si quis illud socium assumpserit in quaestionem? tale quid dico: habetne ueritatem aliquam uisio et auditio hominibus? an non etiam poetae haec nobis semper obmussant, quod neque audiamus certum neque uideamus?

τί δὲ δὴ περὶ αὐτὴν τὴν τῆς φρονήσεως κτῆσιν; πότερον ἐμπόδιον τὸ σῶμα ἢ οὔ, ἐάν τις αὐτὸ ἐ ν τ ῇ ζη τ ή σ ε ι [65b] κοινωνὸν συμπαραλαμβάνῃ;

Plato in English20

Now how about the acquisition of wisdom? Is the body a hindrance, or is it not, if you use it as an accessory in the search? What I mean is, do sight οἷον τὸ τοιόνδε λέγω ἆρα ἔχει ἀλήθειάν τινα and hearing provide men with any true knowledge, ὄψις τε καὶ ἀκοὴ or are even the poets τοῖς ἀνθρώποις, ἢ τά γε τοιαῦτα καὶ οἱ ποιηταὶ always trying to tell us something like this, ἡμῖν ἀεὶ θρυλοῦσιν, ὅτι οὔτʼ ἀκούομεν that nothing that we hear ἀκριβὲς οὐδὲν οὔτε ὁρῶμεν; or see is accurate?

19 Abbreviations of Greek works, like the Latin ones, can be found in the appendix “5. Ancient Literature,” p. 275. The Greek editions cited can be found there in the footnotes. 20 Plato, Phaedo (ed. R. S. Bluck) (ILPP; London 1955) 49.



Tertullian 59

*TE an 18,2 (807)

Pl. Phd. 65e-66a

Plato in English21

Itaque rursus illum ergo ait supersapere qui mente m a x i m e sapiat, neque uisionem proponens

ἆρʼ οὖν ἐκεῖνος ἂν τοῦτο ποιήσειεν καθαρώτατα ὅστις ὅτι μ ά λ ι σ τ α αὐτῇ τῇ διανοίᾳ ἴοι ἐφʼἕκαστον, μήτε τὴν [ed.: τινʼ]22 ὄψιν παρατιθέμενος ἐν τῷ διανοεῖσθαι μήτε [τινὰ]23 ἄλλην [66a] αἴσθησιν ἐφέλκων μ η δ ε μ ί α ν μετὰ τοῦ λογισμοῦ, ἀλλʼ αὐτῇ καθʼ αὑτὴν εἰλικρινεῖ τῇ διανοίᾳ χρώμενος αὐτὸ καθʼ αὑτὸ εἰλικρινὲς ἕ κ α σ τ ο ν ἐπιχειροῖ θηρεύειν τῶν ὄντων, ἀπαλλαγεὶς ὅτι μάλιστα ὀφθαλμῶν τε καὶ ὤτων καὶ ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν σύμπαντος τοῦ σώματος, ὡς ταράττοντος καὶ οὐκ ἐῶντος τὴν ψυχὴν κτήσασθαι ἀλήθειάν τε καὶ φρόνησιν ὅταν κοινωνῇ.

Then he would reach the purest truth in this procedure who approached each thing with the intellect itself alone, not bringing in sight to aid his thinking, nor dragging in any other sense to supplement his reason: he who should try to track down each item of reality, alone by itself, in its pure essence, by using pure thought, alone by its self—disregarding, so far as possible, eyes and ears, and practically all the body, on the ground that it caused confusion, and whenever it played any part, would not allow the soul to acquire truth and wisdom.

neque u l l u m eiusmodi sensum attrahens animo, sed ipsa mente sincera utens i n r e c o g i t a n d o ad capiendum s i n c e r u m quodque rerum, si egressus potissimum ab oculis et auribus et, quod dicendum sit, a toto corpore ut turbante et non permittente animae possidere ueritatem atque prudentiam, quando communicat.

2.3. Relation to LXXo’ and LXXθ’ a. Synoptic tables Tertullian’s dependence on LXXo’ Dn is well known, particularly through the research of Burkitt, who enumerated citations and allusions concerning such dependence.24 However, although Burkitt’s pioneering work marks a significant Plato, Phaedo, 50. Emphasis original. Τινʼ is the editor’s conjecture, to replace τήν. Brackets are the editor’s. One manuscript attests the reading, whereas the other witnesses omit it. 24 Burkitt, Old Latin, 18-25. 21 22 23

60

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

advance in this field, he does overlook numerous agreements with LXXθ’ while emphasizing those with LXXo’.25 For this reason, as well as the availability of Greek editions superior to Burkitt’s, I have arranged the evidence anew in synopsis to serve as a reference. The reader will find Tertullian’s text flanked by both critical texts and sometimes a fourth column for a specific Greek witness that agrees with Tertullian. The Latin text has been formatted to draw attention to agreements with the various Greek texts, as described in the “Method” section.26 When Tertullian agrees with MT against LXXo’, a Gothic “M,” i.e. “𝔐,” appears beside the corresponding Greek variant. Some of the identifications are educated guesses, such as Dn 9:21 uolans | πετόμενος against φερόμενος, and 10:3 donec consummarentur tres hebdomades | ἕως τοῦ συντελέσαι με τρεῖς ἑβδομάδας against ἕως πληρώσεως τριῶν ἑβδομάδων. Some of these cases will be treated in the later analyses of this chapter. Meanwhile, the format below facilitates the reader’s own examination and judgment of the agreements, sometimes providing footnotes to aid such judgment. a.1. Sus 37 LXXo’

with TE

καὶ κυκλοῦτες τὸ στάδιον εἴδομεν ταύτην ἀναπαυομένην μετὰ ἀνδρὸς καὶ στάντες ἐθεωροῦμεν αὐτοὺς ὁμιλοῦντας ἀλλήλοις

θ’

*TE cor 4,3 (73)

LXX

ceterum in stadio mariti non putem uelatam deambulasse quae placuit

καὶ ἦλθε πρὸς αὐτὴν νεανίσκος, ὃς ἦν κεκρυμμένος, καὶ ἀνέπεσε μετʼ αὐτῆς

The following synopsis adds a column for Greek 967 between LXXo’ and Tertullian, for the papyrus aligns more closely with the Father than the critical LXXo’ text to which it is the principal witness.

25 Bodenmann goes to the other extreme, attributing three text types to Tertullian. See p. 73, n. 77 and p. 95, n. 18. 26 See pp. 23-24.



Tertullian 61

a.2. Dn 1:17 with TE

Greek 967 with TE

καὶ τοῖς νεανίσκοις

καὶ τοῖς νεανίσκοις

ἔδωκεν ὁ κύριος ἐπιστήμην καὶ σύνεσιν29 φρονήσεως ἐν πάσῃ γραμματικῇ τέχνῃ καὶ τῷ Δανιηλ ἔδωκε σύνεσιν ἐν παντὶ ὁράματι καὶ

ἔδωκεν ὁ κύριος ἐπιστήμην καὶ σύνεσιν φρονήσεως ἐν πάσῃ γραμματικῇ (cf. 𝔐31) καὶ τῷ Δανιηλ (om. ἔδωκε 𝔐32) σύνεσιν ἐν παντὶ ῥήματι καὶ

dedit enim Deus adolescentulis scientiam et intellegentiam in omni litteratura et Danieli

ἐνυπνίοις καὶ ἐν πάσῃ σοφίᾳ

ἐνυπνίοις καὶ ἐν πάσῃ σοφίᾳ

somniis et in omni sophia

LXXo’

*TE je 9,2 (1265)27

in omni uerbo et in

with TE

θ’

LXX

καὶ τὰ παιδάρια ταῦτα, οἱ τέσσαρες αὐτοί, ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς ὁ θεὸς 𝔐28 σύνεσιν καὶ

φρόνησιν (cf. 𝔐30) ἐν πάσῃ γραμματικῇ καὶ σοφίᾳ καὶ Δανιηλ συνῆκεν ἐν πάσῃ ὁράσει καὶ (+ ἐν L−36-311 925 Bo Arab) ἐνυπνίοις

27 Munnich rightly points out that this verse has undergone Tertullian’s literary intervention. So it is not clear whether Deus reflects his Vorlage or not, and the omission of the second σύνεσιν may be an intentional abbreviation of the passage. See J. Ziegler – O. Munnich – D. Fraenkel (ed.), Sus-Dn-Bel, 97-98. Nevertheless, the quantity of Tertullian’s agreements with the MT against LXXo’ counts in favor of Deus truly translating ὁ θεóς as well as a Vorlage having just two terms for underlying scientiam et intellegentiam as does LXXθ’ and the MT (see. p. 61, n. 30). Even so, scientiam et intellegentiam matches the first two of LXXo’’s three terms, ἐπιστήμην καὶ σύνεσιν φρονήσεως better than LXXθ’ σύνεσιν καὶ φρόνησιν. See p. 61, nn. 29-30, and p. 80 for more detail. 28 ‫הָאֱֹלהִים‬. 29 Cf. LXXo’ Sus 62b, the very end of the chapter: εὐσεβήσουσι γὰρ νεώτεροι, καὶ ἔσται ἐν αὐτοῖς πνεῦμα ἐπιστήμης καὶ συνέσεως εἰς αἰῶνα αἰῶνος. As Sus was often placed before Dn, the proximity of this verse to Dn 1:17 may have influenced Tertullian’s simplification of ἐπιστήμην καὶ σύνεσιν φρονήσεως… σύνεσιν to the first two terms: scientiam et intellegentiam. See also p. 61, nn. 27 and 30, and p. 80. 30 Tertullian better matches the first two Greek terms of LXXo’, yet his use of two rather than three terms ְ ‫מַּדָ ע ְו ַה‬. In any case, it is impossible to render a final judgment on the Greek Vormatches LXXθ’ and MT ‫ׂשּכֵל‬ lage since the Latin is an allusion and therefore may have adapted three terms to two for literary reasons. See also p. 61, nn. 27 and 29, and p. 80. 31 This text bears quantitative equivalence to the MT: ‫ר‬‎ ‫ ְּבכָל־ ֵס ֶפ‬. 32 ‫וְדָ נִּי ֵאל ֵהבִין‬.

62

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

a.3. Dn 2 LXXo’

with TE

2:12. 14. 18. 24 (2x). 48 σοφισταί (cf. 4:15. 34c) 2:17-18 Δανιηλ… ὑπέδειξεν ἕκαστα τῷ Ανανίᾳ καὶ Μισαηλ καὶ Αζαρίᾳ τοῖς συνεταίροις καὶ παρήγγειλε νηστείαν καὶ δέησιν καὶ τιμωρίαν ζητῆσαι παρὰ τοῦ κυρίου τοῦ ὑψίστου

θ’

*TE je 7,7 (1264)

LXX

Circa somnium regis Babylonis omnes turbantur sophistae, negant ultra de praestantia humana posse cognosci. Solus Daniel Deo fidens et sciens, quid ad demerendam Dei gratiam faceret, spatium tridui postulat, cum sua fraternitate ieiunat, atque ita orationibus commendatis et ordinem et significationem somnii per omnia instruitur, tyranni sophistis parcitur, Deus glorificatur, Daniel honoratur,… (continued at Dn 9:1-3)

2:12. 14. 18. 24 (2x). 48 σοφοί 2:17-18 Δανιηλ… τῷ Ανανίᾳ καὶ τῷ Μισαηλ καὶ τῷ Αζαρίᾳ τοῖς φίλοις αὐτοῦ ἐγνώρισε τὸ ῥῆμα. καὶ οἰκτιρμοὺς ἐζήτουν παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ

a.4. Dn 2:34. 44 LXXo’

34 ἐτμήθη λίθος ἐξ ὄρους ἄνευ χειρῶν… 44 αὕτη ἡ βασιλεία… πατάξει δὲ καὶ ἀφανίσει τὰς βασιλείας ταύτας

*TE Marc 3,7,3 (86,17) et petra sane illa apud Danihelem de monte praecisa, quae imaginem saecularium regnorum comminuet et conteret

with TE

LXX

θ’

34 ἀπεσχίσθη λίθος ἐξ ὄρους ἄνευ χειρῶν… 44 ἡ βασιλεία αὐτοῦ… λεπτυνεῖ καὶ λικμήσει πάσας τὰς βασιλείας



Tertullian 63

The following synopsis adds a fourth, right-hand column for the numerous pertinent variants within the LXXθ’ tradition. a.5. Dn 3:16-18 with TE

θ’

TE sco 8,6 (1083)

with TE

ἀποκριθῆναί σοι ἐπὶ τῇ ἐπιταγῇ ταύτῃ 17 ἔστι γὰρ ὁ θεὸς ὁ ἐν

16 non habemus necessitatem respondendi huic tuo imperio. 17 est enim Deus

16 οὐ χρείαν ἔχομεν ἡμεῖς περὶ τοῦ ῥήματος τούτου ἀποκριθῆναί σοι 17 ἔστι γὰρ θεός,

οὐρανοῖς εἷς κύριος ἡμῶν, ὃν φοβούμεθα, ὅς ἐστι δυνατὸς ἐξελέσθαι ἡμᾶς ἐκ τῆς καμίνου τοῦ πυρός, καὶ ἐκ τῶν χειρῶν σου, βασιλεῦ, ἐξελεῖται ἡμᾶς 18 καὶ

noster, quem colimus, potens eruere nos de fornace ignis et ex manibus tuis, 18 et

ᾧ ἡμεῖς λατρεύομεν, δυνατὸς ἐξελέσθαι ἡμᾶς ἐκ τῆς καμίνου τοῦ πυρὸς τῆς καιομένης, καὶ ἐκ τῶν χειρῶν σου, βασιλεῦ, ῥύσεται ἡμᾶς 18 καὶ

τότε φανερόν σοι ἔσται, ὅτι οὔτε τῷ εἰδώλῳ σου λατρεύομεν οὔτε τῇ εἰκόνι σου τῇ χρυσῇ, ἣν ἔστησας, προσκυνοῦμεν.

tunc manifestum fiet tibi, quod neque idolo tuo famulabimur nec imaginem tuam auream, quam statuisti, adorabimus.

ἐὰν μή, γνωστὸν ἔστω σοι, βασιλεῦ, ὅτι τοῖς θεοῖς σου οὐ λατρεύομεν καὶ τῇ εἰκόνι, ᾗ ἔστησας, οὐ προσκυνοῦμεν.

LXXo’

16 οὐ χρείαν ἔχομεν

‫דְּנָה ּפִתְ גָם‬. ‫ ֱא ָל ַהנָא‬. 35 ‫לֶ ֱהוֵא־לָך‬. 33 34

LXX

Var

~ τούτου τοῦ ῥήματος 91 verss.p CY PSAU spe 𝔐33

+ ἡμῶν 62′ 𝔐34

om. βασ. Aethp CYp PS-AU spe Hippol.S ἔσται σοι Q 𝔐35

+ τῇ χρυσῇ codd

64

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

a.6. Dn 3:21. 94 θ’

LXXo’

*TE or 15,2 (265)36

with TE

21 τότε οἱ ἄνδρες ἐκεῖνοι συνεποδίσθησαν ἔχοντες τὰ ὑποδήματα αὐτῶν καὶ τὰς τιάρας αὐτῶν ἐπὶ τῶν κεφαλῶν αὐτῶν σὺν τῷ ἱματισμῷ αὐτῶν καὶ ἐνεβλήθησαν εἰς τὴν κάμινον τοῦ πυρός. 94 τὰ σαράβαρα αὐτῶν οὐκ ἠλλοιώθησαν

qui tres sanctos in fornace Babylonii regis orantes cum sarabaris et tiaris suis exaudiuit

21 τότε οἱ ἄνδρες ἐκε͂νοι ἐπεδήθησαν σὺν τοῖς σαραβάροις αὐτῶν καὶ τιάραις 𝔐37 καὶ περικνημῖσι καὶ ἐβλήθησαν εἰς μέσον τῆς καμίνου τοῦ πυρὸς τῆς καιομένης.

LXX

94 τὰ σαράβαρα αὐτῶν οὐκ ἠλλοιώθη

a.7. Dn 3:92 LXXo’ Ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ θεωρῶ τέσσαρας ἄνδρας λελυμένους καὶ περιπατοῦντας ἐν τῷ πυρί, καὶ φθορὰ οὐδεμία ἐγενήθη ἐν αὐτοῖς, καὶ ἡ ὅρασις τοῦ τετάρτου ὁμοίωμα ἀγγέλου θεοῦ.

*TE Marc 4,21,9 (270,63)38

perspice igitur et tu cum rege Babylonio fornacem eius ardentem et inuenies illic tamquam filium hominis.

with TE

θ’

LXX

καὶ εἶπεν ὁ βασιλεύς Ὅδε ἐγὼ ὁρῶ ἄνδρας τέσσαρας λελυμένους καὶ περιπατοῦντας ἐν μέσῳ τοῦ πυρός, καὶ διαφθορὰ οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν αὐτοῖς, καὶ ἡ ὅρασις τοῦ τετάρτου ὁμοία υἱῷ 𝔐39 θεοῦ.

36 Cf. *res 58,7 (1006): Babylonii ignes trium fratrum nec tiaras nec sarabara, quamquam Iudaeis aliena, laeserunt. 37 (‫ ַּפ ְּטׁשֵיהֹון‬qĕrê) ‎‫ ְּבס ְַר ָּבלֵיהֹון ַּפּטִיׁשֵיהֹון‬. 38 Cf. TE *Pra 16,6 (190,34): Quale est ut Deus omnipotens… ille altissimus... in fornace Babylonii regis quartus apparuerit? Quanquam filius hominis est dictus; TE *Marc 4,10,12 (138,102): Hic erit uisus Babylonio regi in fornace, cum martyribus suis quartus, tamquam filius hominis, ueniens cum caeli nubibus iudex. 39 ‫ ְלבַר‬.



Tertullian 65

a.8. Dn 4:29 LXXo’ with TE οἱ ἄγγελοι διώξονταί σε ἐπὶ ἔτη ἑπτά

*TE pae 12,7 (188,22)40

LXX

peccator restituendo sibi institutam a Domino exomologesin sciens, praeteribit illam, quae Babylonium regem in regna restituit? Diu enim paenitentiam Domino immolarat, septenni squalore exomologesin operatus, unguium leoninum in modum efferatione et capilli incuria horrorem aquilinum praeferente.

θ’

ἑπτὰ καιροὶ ἀλλαγήσονται ἐπὶ σέ

The following synopsis places patristic citations closest to Tertullian since they most closely match him, especially Clement of Rome. Patristic texts from both LXXo’ and LXXθ’ textual traditions match Tertullian’s adsistebant… apparebant with παρειστήκεισαν… ἐλειτούργουν, even though these depart from the critical Greek texts. a.9. Dn 7:10

LXXo’

ClemRom.41

TE Pra 3,4 (148,27)

Greek 230, Or.,42 PsChr.43

LXX

χίλιαι χιλιάδες ἐθεράπευον αὐτὸν, καὶ μύριαι μυριάδες παρειστήκεισαν

μύριαι μυριάδες παρειστήκεισαν αὐτῷ, καὶ χίλιαι χιλιάδες ἐλειτούργουν44

milies centies centena milia adsistebant ei, et milies centena milia apparebant

χίλιαι χιλιάδες παρειστήκεισαν αὐτῷ, καὶ μύριαι μυριάδες ἐλειτούργουν

χίλιαι χιλιάδες ἐλειτούργουν αὐτῷ, καὶ μύριαι μυριάδες παρειστήκεισαν

ei

αὐτῷ

αὐτῷ

αὐτῷ

𝔐45 αὐτῷ (ἐλειτ. αὐτῷ with Iust.)

θ’

40 Cf. *TE pat 13,4 (104,13) Sic ille rex Babylonius offenso Domino cum squalore et paedore septenni ab humana forma exulasset. 41 ClemRom. ep 34,6 (19). 42 Or. 8,34 (549,18). 43 PsChr. pa (728); PsChr. sa (736). 44 For λειτουργέω | appareo see J. Ziegler – O. Munnich – D. Fraenkel (ed.), Sus-Dn-Bel, 96-97. Cf. p. 78, n. 95. 45 ‫ְקּומּון‬ ַ ְ ‫( י‬παρειστήκεισαν… ἐλειτούργουν). ֑ ‫שׁ ְמּׁשּו ּ֔נֵה… י‬

66

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

The following two synopses each cover Dn 7:13-14, cited differently by Tertullian in two different books of his Adversus Marcionem. Justin Martyr’s text occupies a column beside Tertullian in the first synopsis since these two share several features against the critical Greek texts. The font indicated at the top of the column (“with TE”) draws attention to such agreements. a.10. Dn 7:13-14

LXXo’

with TE Iust.46

13 καὶ ἰδοὺ ἐπὶ τῶν νεφελῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἤρχετο ὡς υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου, καὶ παλαιοῦ ἡμερῶν

ἕως

παρῆν, καὶ οἱ παρεστηκότες παρῆσαν αὐτῷ. 14 καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτῷ ἐξουσία βασιλική, καὶ πάντα τὰ ἔθνη τῆς γῆς κατὰ γένη καὶ πᾶσα

with TE

13 καὶ ἰδοὺ, μετὰ 𝔐48 τῶν νεφελῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ὡς υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου ἐρχόμενος 𝔐50 καὶ ἦλθεν 𝔐51 ἕως τοῦ παλαιοῦ τῶν ἡμερῶν, καὶ παρῆν ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ, καὶ οἱ παρεστηκότες προσήγαγον αὐτόν. 14 καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτῷ ἐξουσία καὶ τιμὴ βασιλικὴ, καὶ πάντα τὰ ἔθνη τῆς γῆς κατὰ γένη καὶ πᾶσα

TE Marc 3,7,4 (88,25)47 13 et ecce cum49 nubibus caeli tamquam filius hominis ueniens, uenit usque ad ueterem dierum; aderat in conspectu eius, et qui adsistebant adduxerunt illum; 14 et data est ei potestas regia et omnes nationes terrae secundum genera, et omnis

with TE

θ’

LXX

13 καὶ ἰδοὺ μετὰ τῶν νεφελῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ὡς υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου ἐρχόμενος καὶ ἕως τοῦ παλαιοῦ τῶν ἡμερῶν ἔφθασε καὶ προσήχθη αὐτῷ

14 καὶ αὐτῷ ἐδόθη ἡ ἀρχὴ καὶ ἡ τιμὴ καὶ ἡ βασιλεία, καὶ πάντες οἱ λαοί, φυλαί, γλῶσσαι

Iust. dial 31,3 (119,15). Cf. the variant in the following synopsis. ‫עִם‬. Cf. Mt 24:30, 26:64 ἐπὶ τῶν νεφελῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ; Mk 14:62 μετὰ τῶν νεφελῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ; Apc 1:7 Ἰδοὺ ἔρχεται μετὰ (ἐπὶ codd) τῶν νεφελῶν. 49 Cf. Dn 7:13 in TE car 15,1 (272): Et Daniel: “Et ecce super nubes tamquam filius hominis”; *TE Marc 3,24,11 (212,89): illo scilicet filio hominis ueniente in nubibus, secundum Danihelem; *TE Marc 4,10,12 (138,102): Hic erit uisus Babylonio regi in fornace, cum martyribus suis quartus, tamquam filius hominis, ueniens cum caeli nubibus iudex. 50 ‫ָאתֵ ה‬. 51 ‫ ְמטָה‬. 46 47 48



Tertullian 67

LXXo’

with TE Iust.46

δόξα λατρεύουσα αὐτῷ· καὶ ἡ ἐξουσία αὐτοῦ ἐξουσία αἰώνιος, ἥτις οὐ μὴ ἀρθῇ, καὶ ἡ βασιλεία αὐτοῦ, ἥτις οὐ μὴ φθαρῇ.

with TE

δόξα λατρεύουσα ἡ ἐξουσία αὐτοῦ ἐξουσία αἰώνιος, ἥτις οὐ μὴ ἀρθῇ, καὶ ἡ βασιλεία αὐτοῦ οὐ μὴ φθαρῇ.

TE Marc 3,7,4 (88,25)47

with TE

gloria famulabunda; et potestas eius usque in aeuum, quae non auferetur, et regnum eius quod non uitiabitur.

δουλεύσουσιν αὐτῷ· ἡ ἐξουσία αὐτοῦ ἐξουσία αἰώνιος, ἥτις οὐ παρελεύσεται, καὶ ἡ βασιλεία αὐτοῦ οὐ διαφθαρήσεται.

θ’

LXX

In this second citation of Dn 7:13-14 the LXXo’ column has been restored to its usual place to the left of Tertullian since it is just as close to his text as is Justin Martyr’s. a.11. Dn 7:13-14

Iust.52

with TE

LXXo’

with TE

13 ἰδοὺ, μετὰ 𝔐53 τῶν νεφελῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ὡς υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου

13 ἰδοὺ ἐπὶ τῶν νεφελῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἤρχετο ὡς υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου…

ἐρχόμενος 𝔐54… 14 ἐδόθη αὐτῷ ἐξουσία καὶ τιμὴ βασιλικὴ, καὶ πάντα τὰ ἔθνη… καὶ πᾶσα δόξα

14 ἐδόθη αὐτῷ ἐξουσία βασιλική, καὶ πάντα τὰ ἔθνη… καὶ πᾶσα δόξα

Iust. dial 31,3 (119,15). ‫עִם‬. Cf. p. 66, n. 48. 54 ‫ָאתֵ ה‬. 52 53

TE Marc 4,39,11 (486,97) 13 ecce cum caeli nubibus tamquam filius hominis adueniens… 14 data est illi regia potestas… et uniuersae nationes… et gloria omnis

with TE

θ’

LXX

13 ἰδοὺ μετὰ τῶν νεφελῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ὡς υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου ἐρχόμενος… 14 αὐτῷ ἐδόθη ἡ ἀρχὴ καὶ ἡ τιμὴ καὶ ἡ βασιλεία, καὶ πάντες οἱ λαοί, φυλαί, γλῶσσαι

68

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

Iust.52

with TE

λατρεύουσα· καὶ ἡ ἐξουσία αὐτοῦ ἐξουσία αἰώνιος, ἥτις οὐ μὴ ἀρθῇ, καὶ ἡ βασιλεία αὐτοῦ οὐ μὴ φθαρῇ.

LXXo’

with TE

λατρεύουσα αὐτῷ· καὶ ἡ ἐξουσία αὐτοῦ ἐξουσία αἰώνιος, ἥτις οὐ μὴ ἀρθῇ, καὶ ἡ βασιλεία αὐτοῦ, ἥτις οὐ μὴ φθαρῇ.

TE Marc 4,39,11 (486,97)

with TE

seruiens illi; et potestas eius aeterna, quae non auferetur, et regnum eius, quod non corrumpetur.

δουλεύσουσιν αὐτῷ· ἡ ἐξουσία αὐτοῦ ἐξουσία αἰώνιος, ἥτις οὐ παρελεύσεται, καὶ ἡ βασιλεία αὐτοῦ οὐ διαφθαρήσεται.

θ’

LXX

a.12. Dn 9:1-3 LXXo’

with TE

1 Ἔτους πρώτου ἐπὶ Δαρείου… 2 τῷ πρώτῳ ἔτει τῆς βασιλείας αὐτοῦ ἐγὼ Δανιηλ διενοήθην ἐν τοῖς βιβλίοις τὸν ἀριθμὸν τῶν ἡμερῶν, ὅτε ἐγένετο πρόσταγμα κυρίου ἐπὶ Ιερεμίαν τὸν προφήτην… 3 καὶ ἔδωκα τὸ πρόσωπόν μου ἐπὶ κύριον τὸν θεὸν εὑρεῖν προσευχὴν καὶ ἔλεος ἐν νηστείαις καὶ ἐν σποδῷ καὶ σάκκῳ.

θ’

*TE je 7,7 (1264)55

with TE

Anno primo regis Darii,

1 Ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ ἔτει Δαρείου…

cum ex recogitatu56 praedicatorum temporum ab Hieremia dedit faciem suam Deo

2 ἐγὼ Δανιηλ συνῆκα ἐν ταῖς βίβλοις τὸν ἀριθμὸν τῶν ἐτῶν, ὃς ἐγενήθη λόγος κυρίου πρὸς Ιερεμίαν τὸν προφήτην… 3 καὶ ἔδωκα τὸ πρόσωπόν μου πρὸς κύριον τὸν θεὸν τοῦ ἐκζητῆσαι προσευχὴν καὶ δεήσεις ἐν νηστείαις καὶ (om. ἐν 𝔐57) σάκκῳ (+ καὶ σποδῷ codd 𝔐58).

in ieiuniis et sacco et cinere.

LXX

Cf. TE *je 10,13 (1269): Daniel anno primo regis Darii, cum ieiunus (Var ieiuniis) in sacco et cinere… Concerning the identification of διενοήθην with recogitatu, see p. 83. ‫ ְוׂשַק‬. 58 ‫ ָו ֵאפֶר‬‎. 55 56 57



Tertullian 69

a.13. Dn 9:4. 21 θ’

with TE

TE je 10,13 (1269)

with TE

4 καὶ προσηυξάμην πρὸς κύριον τὸν θεὸν καὶ ἐξωμολογησάμην… 21 καὶ ἔτι λαλοῦντός μου ἐν τῇ προσευχῇ μου καὶ ἰδοὺ ὁ ἀνήρ, ὃν εἶδον ἐν τῷ ὕπνῳ μου τὴν ἀρχήν, Γαβριηλ, τάχει φερόμενος προσήγγισέ μοι ἐν ὥρᾳ θυσίας ἑσπερινῆς.

4 Daniel… cum…

4 καὶ προσηυξάμην πρὸς κύριον τὸν θεόν μου καὶ ἐξωμολογησάμην… 21 καὶ ἔτι ἐμοῦ λαλοῦντος ἐν τῇ προσευχῇ καὶ (om. καί codd 𝔐59) ἰδοὺ ἀνὴρ Γαβριηλ, ὃν εἶδον ἐν τῇ ὁράσει ἐν τῇ ἀρχῇ, πετόμενος καὶ ἥψατό μου ὡσεὶ 𝔐60 ὥραν θυσίας ἑσπερινῆς.

LXXo’

exomologesin Deo ageret, 21 et adhuc, inquit, loquente me in oratione, ecce uir, quem uideram in somnis initio, uelociter uolans appropinquauit mihi quasi hora uespertini sacrificii.

LXX

a.14. Dn 9:23 LXXo’

with TE

ἐγὼ ἦλθον ὑποδεῖξαί σοι, ὅτι ἐλεεινὸς εἶ

θ’

TE je 7,8 (1264)

with TE

ueni, inquit, demonstrare tibi, quatenus miserabilis es

ἐγὼ ἦλθον τοῦ ἀναγγεῖλαί σοι, ὅτι ἀνὴρ ἐπιθυμιῶν σὺ εἶ

LXX

Yet another Father, John Chrysostom, supplies a helpful citation with similarities to Tertullian’s text in the following synopsis. Chrysostom has been interposed between Tertullian and LXXθ’ since the two Fathers match more closely than do Tertullian and LXXθ’.

59 60

‫ּבַּתְ ִפּלָה‬. ‫ ְכעֵת‬.

70

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

a.15. Dn 10:1-3. 11-12 LXXo’

with TE

1 Ἐν τῷ ἐνιαυτῷ τῷ πρώτῳ Κύρου βασιλέως Περσῶν… καὶ διενοήθην αὐτὸ ἐν ὁράματι. 2 ἐν ἐκείναις ταῖς ἡμέραις ἐγὼ Δανιηλ ἤμην πενθῶν 3 ἄρτον ἐπιθυμιῶν οὐκ ἔφαγον, καὶ κρέας καὶ οἶνος οὐκ εἰσῆλθεν εἰς τὸ στόμα μου, ἔλαιον οὐκ ἠλειψάμην ἕως τοῦ συντελέσαι62 με τρεῖς ἑβδομάδας τῶν ἡμερῶν.

TE je 9,3 (1265)

with TE

1 Anno denique tertio Cyri regis Persarum cum in recogitatum incidisset uisionis, aliam formam humiliationis prospexit. 2 In illis, inquit, diebus ego Daniel eram lugens per tres hebdomadas, 3 panem suauem non edi, caro et uinum non introierunt in os meum, oleo unctus non sum, donec consummarentur tres hebdomades, quibus transactis angelus emissus est taliter alloquens:

1 Ἐν ἔτει τρίτῳ βασιλέως Περσῶν Κῦρου… καὶ δύναμις μεγάλη καὶ σύνεσις ἐδόθη αὐτῷ ἐν τῇ ὀπτασίᾳ. 2 ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ἐκείναις ἐγὼ Δανιηλ ἤμην πενθῶν τρεῖς ἑβδομάδας 3 ἄρτον ἐπιθυμιῶν οὐκ ἔφαγον, καὶ κρέα καὶ οἶνος οὐκ εἰσῆλθον εἰς τὸ στόμα μου, καὶ ἄλειμμα οὐκ ἠλειψάμην ἕως

Chr.61

τριῶν ἑβδομάδων ἡμερῶν.

with TE

θ’

LXX

1 Ἐν ἔτει τρίτῳ 𝔐63 Κύρου βασιλέως Περσῶν… καὶ δύναμις μεγάλη καὶ σύνεσις ἐδόθη αὐτῷ ἐν τῇ ὀπτασίᾳ. 2 ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ἐκείναις ἐγὼ Δανιηλ ἤμην πενθῶν τρεῖς ἑβδομάδας ἡμερῶν 𝔐64 3 ἄρτον ἐπιθυμιῶν οὐκ ἔφαγον, καὶ κρέας καὶ οἶνος οὐκ εἰσῆλθεν εἰς τὸ στόμα μου, καὶ ἄλειμμα οὐκ ἠλειψάμην ἕως πληρώσεως τριῶν ἑβδομάδων ἡμερῶν (om. ἡμερῶν Bo Hippol.J).

61 John Chrysostom, “Ερμηνεια εις τον Δανιηλ προφητην = Interpretatio in Danielem prophetam,” Opera omnia quæ exstant, uel quæ eius nomine circumferuntur. Ad mss. codices Gallicanos, Vaticanos, Anglicanos, Germanicosque. Tomus VI, [pars I] (ed. B. de Montfaucon et al.) (Parisiis 21835) 229-295, 289-290; Idem, “Ερμηνεια εις τον Δανιηλ προφητην = Interpretatio in Danielem prophetam,” Τα ευρισκομενα παντα = Opera omnia quae exstant, uel quae eius nomine circumferuntur. Ad mss. codices Gallicanos, Vaticanos, Anglicanos, Germanicosque. Tomus VI (ed. B. de Montfaucon et al.) (PG 56; Parisiis 1862) 193-246, 241. Cf. p. 277, n. 17. 62 The identification with consummarentur is uncertain. This hypothesis is advanced, beginning at p. 84. 63 ‫ׁשָלֹוׁש‬. 64 ‫ׁש ֻבעִים יָמִים‬ ָ ‫ׁשְֹלׁשָה‬.



Tertullian 71

LXXo’

with TE

11 Δανιηλ, ἄνθρωπος ἐλεεινὸς εἶ… 12 Μὴ φοβοῦ, Δανιηλ· ὅτι ἀπὸ τῆς ἡμέρας τῆς πρώτης, ἧς ἔδωκας τὴν διάνοιάν σου διανοηθῆναι καὶ ταπεινωθῆναι ἐναντίον τοῦ κυρίου65 σου, εἰσηκούσθη τὸ ῥῆμά σου, καὶ ἐγὼ εἰσῆλθον ἐν τῷ ῥήματί σου.

TE je 9,3 (1265)

with TE

11 Daniel, homo es miserabilis, 12 ne timueris, quoniam ex die prima, qua dedisti animam tuam recogitatui et humiliationi coram Deo,

11 Δανιηλ ἀνὴρ ἐπιθυμιῶν… 12 Μὴ φοβοῦ, Δανιηλ· ὅτι ἀπὸ τῆς ἡμέρας τῆς πρώτης, ἧς ἔδωκας τὴν καρδίαν σου τοῦ συνεῖναι καὶ κακωθῆναι ἔναντι κυρίου τοῦ θεοῦ σου, ἠκούσθησαν οἱ λόγοι σου, καὶ ἐγὼ ἦλθον ἐν τοῖς λόγοις σου.

exauditum est uerbum tuum, et ego introiui uerbo tuo.

Chr.

with TE

θ’

LXX

11 Δανιηλ ἀνὴρ ἐπιθυμιῶν… 12 Μὴ φοβοῦ, Δανιηλ· ὅτι ἀπὸ τῆς πρώτης ἡμέρας, ἧς ἔδωκας τὴν καρδίαν σου τοῦ συνιέναι καὶ κακωθῆναι ἐναντίον τοῦ θεοῦ 𝔐66 σου (om. σου lI Hippol. Chr.cit 67), ἠκούσθησαν οἱ λόγοι σου, καὶ ἐγὼ ἦλθον ἐν τοῖς λόγοις σου.

b. Analysis Given the liberties with which Tertullian cites sacred scripture, it is more important to highlight patterns of agreement than isolated instances of it. Despite these liberties, the citations and allusions, taken as a whole, reveal much about Tertullian’s Greek Vorlage.68 The adherence of his text to the Greek stands out most clearly in his longer citations in Dn 3, 7, and 10. For this portion of the inquiry, the question of the degree of fixity of his Latin text can be set aside. Whether he translated all of this material himself, took it all from his community’s Latin Sus-Dn-Bel, or relied on established Latin texts for key words and verses but not for others, his Latin text reveals some of its dependency on specific Greek variants. The first pattern to highlight is that to which Burkitt already drew attention in the late 19th c.: in plenty of instances, bold-faced texts in this study, Tertullian shows dependence on LXXο’ against LXXθ’. Before long LXXθ’ would win near hegemony among Greek and Latin Fathers, but Tertullian writes in an age when this has not yet The manuscripts add (τοῦ) θεοῦ; its omission is the editor’s conjecture. ‫אֱֹלהֶיָך‬. 67 Chr.cit is apparently an unpublished catena text attributed to Chrysostom. Cf. J. Ziegler – O. Munnich – D. Fraenkel (ed.), Sus-Dn-Bel, 128. 68 Cf. J. Ziegler – O. Munnich – D. Fraenkel (ed.), Sus-Dn-Bel, 97-98. 65 66

72

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

occurred. The fact that Tertullian’s Dn is not Theodotionic as such corresponds to the fact that in his day the transition to LXXθ’ was just beginning. His early witness to the text sets a terminus post quem for the completion of this transition in Carthage,69 a transition already completed by the Eastern (Asiatic?) Hippolytus, who used LXXθ’ for his Dn commentary around the year 200.70 Closer to Carthage, Origen of Alexandria also tends to cite LXXθ’ in the first half of the 3rd c.,71 and the North African, Latin translation of the Letter of Barnabas from approximately the same era as Tertullian and Origen suggests reliance on the same.72 Secondly, one must note his agreements with variant readings within the LXXο’ text type, such as those of Justin Martyr.73 A quick, comparative glance at the apparatuses of LXXο’ and LXXθ’ reveals just how few witnesses of the former survive, whereas they abound for the latter. Had the church made the transition to LXXθ’ a century later, we could greatly add to the LXXο’ apparatus. As it is, Justin represents for us the textual plurality that must have existed to a much greater extent than can be seen from the extant texts. Thirdly, Tertullian shares more agreements with LXXθ’ than Burkitt recognizes.74 These can be easily identified in the preceding synopses by scanning for italicized words. The frequency with which Tertullian departs from LXXο’ to follow the MT, often via LXXθ’, is striking: 17 times.75 In half of these instances Tertullian and the MT agree with LXXθ’, whereas they agree with variants of this latter in many of the others. Therefore his Greek text had been noticeably altered toward the MT. From our modern vantage point Tertullian’s text looks somewhat “mixed” between LXXο’ and LXXθ’. The coincidence of Latin variants with each of these, however, can be attributed to Tertullian’s now-lost, mixed Vorlage. This Greek text was surely unremarkable, in its ancient environment of textual plurality, for its significant overlap with LXXο’ yet numerous corrections toward the MT. When Tertullian’s text principally follows LXXο’ but contains sporadic LXXθ’ readings, he may well be 69 The matter is complicated by the Adversus Iudaeos, attributed to Tertullian and dated, at least for the first half of the work, to the late 2nd c. The North African work contains passages based principally on LXXθ’, though it does not cite Dn extensively. See the treatment beginning at p. 93. 70 This Hippolytus, author of the Contra Noetum, should not be confused with the Roman author of the Elenchus (Φιλοσοφούμενα ἤ Κατὰ πασῶν αἱρέσεων ἔλεγχος), with which he is often conflated into a single “Hippolytus of Rome.” On this issue and the date of the commentary on Dn, see M. Simonetti, “Ippolito,” NDPAC 2, 2584-2599, 2587-2588. 71 J. Ziegler – O. Munnich – D. Fraenkel (ed.), Sus-Dn-Bel, 95. 72 See the treatment beginning at p. 161. 73 Cf. Burkitt, Old Latin, 23, 25. 74 Reinhard Bodenmann gave more attention to this phenomenon in Naissance d’une Exégèse. Daniel dans l’Eglise ancienne des trois premiers siècles (BGBE 28; Tübingen 1986) 83-94. 75 Dn 1:17 ὁ θεός LXXθ’; γραμματικῇ 967; om. ἔδωκε 967; 3:16 τούτου τοῦ ῥήματος 91 verss.p CY PSAU spe; 3:17 θεός ἡμῶν 62′; 3:18 ἔσται σοι Q; 3:21 σὺν τοῖς σαραβάροις αὐτῶν καὶ τιάραις LXXθ’; 3:92 υἱῷ LXXθ’; 7:10 παρειστήκεισαν... ἐλειτούργουν 230 ClemRom. ep 34,6 (19) Or. 8,34 (549,18) PsChr. pa (728) PsChr. sa (736); 7:13 μετὰ Iust. dial 31,3 (119,15) LXXθ’; ἐρχόμενος… ἦλθεν Iust.; 9:3 om. ἐν LXXθ’; 9:3 + καὶ σάκκῳ καὶ σποδῷ codd; 9:21 om. καί codd; ὡσεί LXXθ’; 10:1 τρίτῳ LXXθ’; 10:12 τοῦ θεοῦ LXXθ’.



Tertullian 73

using a Greek text resulting from the same current of Hebraizing literary activity that produced the “proto-Theodotionic” New Testament readings of Dn.76 His mixed text need not be LXXο’ contaminated by a complete, parallel LXXθ’.77 Turning to Tertullian’s affiliations with specific witnesses to the Greek text, we find that he agrees with a variety of them from verse to verse; most prominent among them are Greek 967,78 Justin Martyr, and John Chrysostom. At Dn 1:17 he departs several times from LXXo’ to follow Greek 967, and in the same verse the fragmentary Greek papyrus 925 confirms the antiquity of another reading. He anticipates a Hexaplaric reading at Dn 3:16, with Greek 62′. Two verses later Greek Q is the only support in that language for fiet tibi, with the MT. At Dn 7:10 Tertullian implies a Greek text shared with Clement of Rome and Origen, midway between LXXo’ and LXXθ’: παρειστήκεισαν… ἐλειτούργουν | adsistebant… apparebant. Although Munnich rightly points out that apparebant translates ἐλειτούργουν,79 one can easily overlook the correlation with Greek 230. It is the only manuscript with this reading and belongs to the Greek Q group, but it is cited in the LXXθ’ apparatus, Tertullian in that of LXXo’. One finds an impressive agreement with Justin Martyr at Dn 7:13, over against LXXo’.80 At Dn 10:2-3 it is Chrysostom’s text alone that most resembles Tertullian’s. The following table presents the evidence just discussed and adds greater detail to it. LXXo’

Vorlage81

Tertullian

1:17

×

Deus

1:17

γραμματικῇ τέχνῃ

ὁ θεός LXXθ’ 𝔐

1:17

τῷ Δανιηλ ἔδωκε

vs

γραμματικῇ × 967 (cf. 𝔐) τῷ Δανιηλ × 967 𝔐

litteratura × Danieli ×

76 E.g. LXXθ’ Dn 7:13 in Mc 14:62, and an allusion to LXXθ’ Dn 6:22 in Hbr 11:33. There are also numerous similarities between LXXθ’ (and LXXο’) Dn and Apc; see McLay, “Daniel,” 552. 77 Bodenmann identifies the mixed text types of Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and Cyprian, which contain elements of both LXXθ’ and LXXo’, as concrete instances of Proto-Theodotion’s work; Naissance d’une Exégèse, 63-86, 95-100. Proto-Theodotion, however, is a useful label that can be occupied by different revisers in different times and places, to categorize LXXθ’ readings before the emergence of LXXθ’ proper. Cf. p. 95, n. 18. 78 Greek manuscripts are numbered according to the system of the Septuaginta-Unternehmen as proposed in A. Rahlfs, Verzeichnis der griechischen Handschriften des Alten Testaments (MiSU 2; Berlin 11914); cf. A. Rahlfs – D. Fraenkel, Verzeichnis der griechischen Handschriften des Alten Testament. I. Die Überlieferung bis zum VIII. Jahrhundert (Sept.S 1/1; Göttingen 22004) 450-465. For descriptions of the manuscript evidence of Dn, see J. Ziegler (ed.), Ez, 7-11; J. Ziegler – O. Munnich – D. Fraenkel (ed.), Sus-Dn-Bel, 9-20, 121-124. See Appendix 4. LXX witnesses, 4.1. Direct tradition, p. 271. 79 J. Ziegler – O. Munnich – D. Fraenkel (ed.), Sus-Dn-Bel, 96-97. On this point he corrects Burkitt, Old Latin, 22, n. 1. Cf. p. 16, n. 13 of the present work. 80 Cf. Burkitt, Old Latin, 22-23. 81 I.e. the Greek text most likely to underlie Tertullian’s citations.

74

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

LXXo’

Vorlage81

1:17

ὁράματι

ῥήματι 967

1:17

× ἐνυπνίοις

ἐν ἐνυπνίοις L -311 925 Bo Arab

in somniis

3:16

ὁ θεὸς ὁ ἐν οὐρανοῖς εἷς κύριος ἡμῶν

Deus × noster

3:18

σοι ἔσται

θεός × ἡμῶν 62′ 𝔐

7:10

(παρειστήκεισαν…) ἐθεράπευον

7:13

ἐπὶ τῶν νεφελῶν

vs

7:13 ἤρχετο ὡς υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου καὶ ×

Tertullian uerbo −36

~ ἔσται σοι Q 𝔐

~ fiet tibi

(παρειστήκεισαν…) ἐλειτούργουν 230 ClemRom. Or. PsChr.

(adsistebant…) apparebant

μετὰ τῶν νεφελῶν Iust.

cum nubibus

ὡς υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου ἐρχόμενος καὶ ἦλθεν Iust.

tamquam filius hominis ueniens uenit

7:13

παρῆν × ×

παρῆν ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ Iust.

aderat in conspectu eius

7:13

παρῆσαν

προσήγαγον Iust.

adduxerunt

7:13

λατρεύουσα αὐτῷ

λατρεύουσα × Iust.

famulabunda ×

9:21

τῇ προσευχῇ μου καί

oratione × ×

10:2

××

τῇ προσευχῇ × × A′’ 410 Co Aeth 𝔐 τρεῖς ἑβδομάδας Chr. (+ ἡμερῶν LXXθ’)

per tres hebdomadas

10:3

εἰσῆλθεν

εἰσῆλθον Chr.

introierunt

10:3

τρεῖς ἑβδομάδας τῶν ἡμερῶν

τριῶν ἑβδομάδων × × Bo Hippol.J

tres hebdomades × ×

ἐναντίον τοῦ κυρίου σου

ἐναντίον τοῦ θεοῦ × Hippol. Chr.cit LXXθ’: ἐναντίον τοῦ θεοῦ σου 𝔐

coram Deo ×

10:12



Tertullian 75

3. Linguistic analysis Tertullian’s writings are full of linguistic particularities, and his biblical citations are no exception. As he wrote, ipso facto he contributed to the ongoing establishment of a Latin idiom to employ in Christian writings. Inevitably, some linguistic features of these texts never gained currency among Latin Fathers. Other features, however, figure in Christian Latin from that point on. That is not to say that Tertullian is the ultimate source of all the linguistic features treated in this section. Rather, his writings are our extant source for a period from which few Christian writings in Latin have survived. Surely he expected his contemporary audience to understand his works, which for them would not read so oddly as they do to us. Herein lies a great value of Tertullian’s biblical citations: their linguistic form corresponds to the earliest stage of Christian literary activity in the Latin language, providing biblical texts which fit that context but no other. 3.1. Morphology Prior to Tertullian, the word septuennis does appear in the works of a couple of authors. His septennis, however, marks the first occurrence of that form of the word in recorded Latin literature. Tertullian attests septennis twice in his corpus, and septennium as many times.82 The latter occurs just once prior, in Velleius Paterculus, who wrote during Tiberius’s reign.83 3.2. Lexicon a. Consistency and variation Despite the liberties which Tertullian takes, his citations follow known Greek texts rather closely. The two synopses of Dn 7:13-14 helpfully illustrate minor adjustments to a text used twice within the same work. The first, longer version presented follows the Greek more closely. The second, shorter version in the subsequent book of the Adversus Marcionem changes ueniens to adueniens, inverts potestas regia to regia potestas, switches omnis gloria famulabunda to gloria omnis seruiens, and uitiabitur to corrumpetur. Although the differences serve as a caution against treating Tertullian’s citations too literally in general, both versions of 7:13-14 provide plenty of useful lexical information. Within the single citation of Dn 3:16-18, Tertullian does follow the Greek rather closely but nevertheless employs both colo and famulor for λατρεύω. In translating 82 Septennis at Dn 4:29 in *TE pae 12,7 (188,22) and *TE pat 13,4 (104,13). Septennium occurs in his prose in TE an 28,2 (824) and TE an 28,4 (825). 83 Vell. 2,31,3 (32,16).

76

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

Dn 7:14 (δόξα) λατρεύουσα he does employ the typical seruiens in the shorter citation, yet he eschews it in favor of the hapax legomenon famulabunda in the longer one. Given the frequency of the pairing λατρεύω | seruio in Tertullian’s citations,84 it is surprising to find three alternatives, colo, famulor, and famulabundus, within his modest Dn material.85 This goes to show that his translations are not bound to slavish one-to-one lexical equivalents. Although Tertullian fluctuated between the synonyms ueniens / adueniens, between famulabunda / seruiens, and between colo / famulor, his text more often employs the same Latin word to translate a single Greek term. Such is the case for: Dn

Vorlage

Tertullian

1:17, 7:14, 10:12

δίδωμι

do

1:17, 10:12 (2x)86

ῥῆμα

uerbum

3:1787

κάμινος

fornax

7:14 (2x)

ἐξουσία

potestas

9:2, 10:1. 12

διανοέομαι

expressions with recogitatus

9:23, 10:11

ἐλεεινός

miserabilis

10:3. 12

εἰσέρχομαι

introeo

84 Λατρεύω | seruio: Ex 20:5 in TE Marc 2,22,1 (132,4); Dt 11:28 in TE sco 2,5 (1072); Dt 12:2 in TE sco 2,6 (1072); Dt 13:3 in TE sco 2,8 (1072); Dt 13:4 in TE sco 2,8 (1072) (this instance may correspond to the variant δουλεύω rather than λατρεύω); Dt 13:6 in TE sco 2,9 (1073); Mt 4:10 in TE sco 15,6 (1097). Cf. δουλεύω | seruio at Mt 6:24 in TE cor 12,4 (151). 85 K. Zilverberg, “Cultic verbs in Vetus Latina Daniel and in Jerome’s translations of the Greek additions to Daniel,” 13th International Colloquium on Late and Vulgar Latin (Latin vulgaire – latin tardif XIII) (AAH 59; Budapest 2019) 446-448. 86 Tertullian’s Dn translates the three occurrences of ῥῆμα by uerbum, which is his general tendency. See R. Braun, Deus Christianorum. Recherches sur le vocabulaire doctrinal de Tertullien (Paris 21977) 270, n. 1. E.g., ῥῆμα | uerbum occurs at Dt 19:15 (Cf. Mt 18:16 and 2 Cor 13:1) in TE hae 22,6 (203) and *TE ba 6,2 (13,179); Dt 30:14 in TE Marc 4,35,13 (440,111); Is 40:8 (Cf. 1 Pt 1:25) in TE Marc 4,33,9 (410,83); Mt 4:4; (cf. Lc 4:4) in *TE ba 20,4 (34,569). For two of these verses the variant ῥῆμα | sermo also occurs: Dt 19:15 (Cf. Mt 18:16 and 2 Cor 13:1) in *TE Marc 4,43,2 (520,15); Is 40:8 (Cf. 1 Pt 1:25) in TE Pra 27,7 (226,34). 87 Besides Dn 3:17 in TE sco 8,6 (1083), one finds plenty of allusions to Dn 3, which never depart from fornax: *TE Marc 4,10,12 (138,102); *TE Marc 4,21,9 (270,63); *TE or 15,2 (265); *TE Pra 16,6 (190,34).



Tertullian 77

b. Loan-words from Greek, and a Semitism The vocabulary directly dependent on the Greek text includes: sophia, sophista, exomologesin ago, idolum, sarabara et tiarae, saccus, and stadium. Of these, Tertullian elsewhere explains to his Latin readers what sophia and exomologesis mean, though he uses them much more often without explanation. His first definition of exomologesis is: “Exomologesis est petitio ueniae, quia qui petit ueniam, delictum confitetur.”88 A few years later he uses a different formulation, which nevertheless retains the expression delictum confiteor: Is actus, qui magis graeco uocabulo et exprimitur et frequentatur, exomologesis est, qua delictum nostrum Domino confitemur, non quidem ut ignaro, sed quatenus satisfactio confessione disponitur, confessione paenitentia nascitur, paenitentia Deus mitigatur.89

Although he avoided simply equating exomologesis with *confessio, for sophia he provides the direct equivalent sapientia: “‘Sophia,’ inquit, ‘iugulauit filios suos.’ Sophia sapientia est.”90 Stadium may have presented the monolingual Latin reader with the greatest difficulty, for Latin literature attests no other use of it in the sense of LXXο’ Sus 37, a (garden) walking route. The word will be treated at greater length in its own subsection.91 In Tertullian’s allusion to Dn 9:3 he preserves the Semitism of “giving one’s face,” dedit faciem suam (Deo), to mean “turning towards.” The Hebrew expression from which it derives, -‫נתן את־פנ‬, is used more broadly to signify directing one’s attention toward another.92 At Dn 9:3 Daniel turns toward and directs his attention toward God for prayer. c. Latinate vocabulary Even while preserving some Greek and Semitic vocabulary, in some instances Tertullian chooses characteristically Latin words. Consider Dn 10:12, which exhibits nouns for Greek infinitives that do not translate well as Latin infinitives: ἔδωκας τὴν διάνοιάν σου διανοηθῆναι καὶ ταπεινωθῆναι | dedisti animam tuam recogitatui et humiliationi. Although the Semitism do animam has been preserved, in the same phrase Tertullian rightly avoided the awkward *recogitare et humiliari in favor of nouns. TE or 7,1 (261). TE pae 9,2 (180,4). TE sco 7,1 (1081). Cf. O’Malley, Tertullian, 14-17; Braun, Deus Christianorum, 275-280. 91 P. 87. 92 Cf. Lv 20:3. 6, Ez 15:7. Cf. also Ez 3:8, with a different meaning: “I make your face as hard as…” 88 89 90

78

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

Furthermore, one can observe Latinate vocabulary employed even when Greek cognates were available. Tertullian’s Dn eschews *grammatica for litteratura (γραμματική) and *caminus for fornax (κάμινος).93 He likewise Latinizes Dn 10:3 ἄρτος ἐπιθυμιῶν as panis suauis, suppressing the Semitism whereby the noun is modified by another noun. d. Cultic verbs Tertullian employs a wide variety of cultic verbs for Dn: appareo, colo, (exomologesin) facio, famulor, seruio.94 Three of these are used to translate λατρεύω: colo, famulor, and seruio, showing the richness of his vocabulary and the lack of concern for making the Vorlage transparent via stock equivalents. Also interesting is the choice of appareo for λειτουργέω, later attested by the 4th-c. African Tyconius for Dn 7:10 but otherwise uncommon (absent?) as a biblical Latin pairing.95 e. Noteworthy lemmata e.1. Anima Let us now examine anima, the first of three nouns within the semantic field of cognition. As for anima in the phrase of Dn 10:12, it is difficult to divine whence it came. Is it a translation of LXXο’ διάνοια; of LXXθ’ καρδία? Anima is a particularly frequent word in Tertullian’s prose and his scriptures, in which it is the usual translation for ψυχή.96 Yet this latter term appears in no witnesses to Dn 10:12. That he is translating LXXθ’ καρδία as anima is unlikely for two reasons: 1) the phrase otherwise follows LXXο’, and 2) his biblical translation of this word tends to be cor.97 He is unlikely to use anima carelessly, as it is one of his key theological terms and is bound up in his polemic against Hermogenes concerning the vocabulary of Gn 2:7.98 The Carthaginian dedicates a whole tract to his clear concept of anima, Litteratura at Dn 1:17; fornax at Dn 3:17 and passim in Dn 3. For the latter, see p. 76. See Zilverberg, “Cultic Vocabulary”. 95 TY reg 5 (60,2). Cf. Zilverberg, “Cultic Vocabulary”. Tyconius’s text of the verse is quite different from Tertullian’s, so the shared reading apparebant does not prove dependence. 96 For ψυχή | anima, see Gn 2:7 in TE an 3,4 (786), Her 26,1 (148,10), and Her 31,4 (162,30); Lv 21:11 in TE Marc 4,23,10 (300,77); Nm 6:6 in TE Marc 4,23,10 (300,79); Is 44:20 in TE id 4,4 (1104); Mt 22:37 in TE Marc 5,4,11 (126,113); Lc 10:27 in TE Marc 4,25,15 (326,119) and Marc 5,8,9 (188,89); 1 Th 5:23 in TE res 47,17-18 (987) and Marc 5,15,7 (296,66). 97 Καρδία | cor: Dt 8:14 in TE Marc 4,15,9 (192,76); Dt 15:7 in TE Marc 4,16,9 (208,73); Dt 30:14 in TE Marc 4,35,13 (440,111); 1 Rg 13:14 in *TE hae 3,4 (188); Ps 18:8-9 in TE pud 6,4 (168,18); Mt 22:37 in TE Marc 5,4,11 (126,113); Lc 16:15 in TE Marc 4,33,6 (406,53); Act 21:13 in TE fu 6,9 (28,53). At Lc 10:27 Tertullian uses cor in one instance and praecordia in another: TE Marc 4,25,15 (326,119) and TE Marc 5,8,9 (188,89). 98 The pertinent portion of Gn 2:7 is that in which God blows the breath of life into man: ἐνεφύσησεν εἰς τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ πνοὴν ζωῆς, καὶ ἐγένετο ὁ ἄνθρωπος εἰς ψυχὴν ζῶσαν. Tertullian accuses Hermogenes 93 94



Tertullian 79

yet he does allow a bit of elasticity in its meaning in the direction of διάνοια and biblical καρδία.99 The multitude of ancient Latin equivalents for διάνοια demonstrate just how difficult it was to capture the range of the Greek word’s meaning: animus, cor, mens, sensus, sententia, uoluntas, intra (se).100 Tertullian’s biblical citations include animus and sensus as translations for διάνοια, both employed by other Fathers’ citations as well; he twice writes mens for διάνοια from Plato’s Phaedo.101 It is tempting to emend anima to animus, for the latter translates διάνοια in Tertullian’s Lv 19:17 and Augustine’s Gn 17:17.102 Nevertheless, the weak textual tradition for the De ieiunio adversus psychicos—all the manuscripts are lost!—provides no variant for the word. Moreover, Tertullian’s anima is the more appropriate subject of recogitatus et humiliatio than is animus, the latter being a human faculty too superficial for the interior conversion implied.103 Though the evidence is open to multiple interpretations, I consider anima in Dn 10:12 to be yet another Latin translation for διάνοια, conditioned by its biblical context. of changing flatus (πνοή) to spiritus (πνεῦμα) as properties of the human anima. To wit, TE an 11,1-2 (796): Ita et animam, quam flatum ex proprietate defendimus, spiritum nunc ex necessitate pronuntiamus, ceterum aduersus Ηermogenen, qui eam ex materia, non ex Dei flatu contendit, flatum proprie tuemur. Ille enim aduersus ipsius scripturae fidem in spiritum uertit, ut, dum incredibile est spiritum Dei in delictum et mox in iudicium deuenire, ex materia potius anima credatur quam ex Dei spiritu. 99 This is the sort of anima which could be applied to recogitatus and humiliatio in Dn 10:12, as in TE an 13,3 (799): animam semper Deus alloquitur, animam compellat atque aduocat, ut animum sibi aduertat. See also TE spec 13,5 (220,15): Si ergo gulam et uentrem ab inquinamentis liberamus, quanto magis augustiora nostra, et aures et oculos, ab idolothytis et necrothytis uoluptatibus abstinemus, quae non intestinis transiguntur, sed in ipso spiritu et anima digeruntur, quorum munditia magis ad deum pertinet quam intestinorum. Cf. A. Blaise, “Anima,” Dictionnaire latin-français des auteurs chrétiens, 82-83. 100 Gn 17:17 is rich in translations of διάνοια: sensus, cor, mens, animus, intra (se), as can be seen in B. Fischer (ed.), Gn. The Latins exhibited a similar range of vocabulary in translating διάνοια as a classical rhetorical term, as can be seen in Quint. inst. 6,3,70 (349,19): Figuras quoque mentis, quae σχήματα διανοίας dicuntur, res eadem recipit omnis, in quas nonnulli diuiserunt species dictorum. Quint. inst. 9,1,17 (482,16): Inter plurimos enim, quod sciam, consensum est duas eius esse partes, διανοίας, id est mentis uel sensus uel sententiarum (nam his omnibus modis dictum est), et λέξεως, id est uerborum uel dictionis uel elocutionis uel sermonis uel orationis: nam et uariatur et nihil refert. One even finds uoluntas and cor in Christian writers. PS-AU rhe 11 (143,19): His nomina sunt scriptum et uoluntas, quod illi ῥητὸν καὶ διάνοιαν appellant. AM Abr 2,87 (637,2): et dixit inquit in corde suo: si centum annorum nascetur et si Sarra nonaginta annorum pariet. Graecus medie posuit τῇ διανοίᾳ, ut possimus aestimare quia cordi suo dixerit quasi alternanti secum ‘si centenario nascetur et nonagenaria pariet.’ For διάνοια translated at sensus or animus in the VL Pentateuch, see Billen, Old Latin, 217. 101 Lv 19:17 in TE Marc 4,35,2 (430,13) Non odies fratrem tuum in animo (διανοίᾳ) tuo, traductione traduces proximum tuum; Col 1:21 in TE Marc 5,19,6 (352,49) alienatos et inimicos sensu (τῇ διανοίᾳ) in malis operibus; and in *TE res 23,1 (949) Colosensibus scribens mortuos fuisse nos aliquando, alienatos et inimicos sensus (τῇ διανοίᾳ) domini. Pl. Phd. 65e-66a in *TE an 18,2 (807). For the other Fathers’ citations, see the previous note. 102 Lv 19:17 in TE Marc 4,35,2 (430,13); Gn 17:17 in AU ci 16,26,35 (530) and AU loc 1,57 (387,236). 103 Cf. TE an 12,1 (797): Proinde et animum siue mens est νοῦς apud Graecos, non aliud quid intellegimus quam suggestum animae ingenitum et insitum et natiuitus proprium, quo agit, quo sapit, quem secum habens ex semetipsa secum moueat in semetipsa, atque ita moueri uideatur ab illo tamquam substantia alio, ut uolunt qui etiam uniuersitatis motatorem animum decernunt, illum deum Socratis, illum Valentini Vnigenitum ex patre ΒΥΘΩΙ et matre ΣΙΓΗΙ… TE an 18,5 (807): Ob haec ergo praestruximus neque animum aliud quid esse quam animae suggestum et structum, neque spiritum extraneum quid quam quod et ipsa per flatum, ceterum accessioni deputandum quod aut deus postea aut diabolus adspiraret.

80

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

e.2. Scientia et intellegentia It is difficult to align scientiam et intellegentiam in Dn 1:17, where LXXο’ reads ἐπιστήμην καὶ σύνεσιν φρονήσεως and LXXθ’ reads σύνεσιν καὶ φρόνησιν. Tertullian’s literary intervention in the verse104 warrants due caution, yet a comparison of the equivalents of ἐπιστήμη, σύνεσις, and φρόνησις in Tertullian will help to sort this out.105 The following table shows equivalents of ἐπιστ-, σύνεσις, and φρόνησις in Tertullian. vs

Vorlage

Is 55:5

ἔθνη, ἃ οὐκ ᾔδεισάν σε, nationes, quae eum non sciebant, et ἐπικαλέσονταί σε, καὶ λαοί, populi ad Christum hodie confuοἳ οὐκ ἐπίστανταί σε giunt, quem retro ignorabant

*Marc 3,20,10 (180,75)

Is 11:2

πνεῦμα σοφίας καὶ συνέσεως, πνεῦμα βουλῆς καὶ ἰσχύος, πνεῦμα γνώσεως καὶ εὐσεβείας

spiritus sapientiae et intellegentiae, spiritus consilii et ualentiae, spiritus agnitionis et religionis

Marc 5,8,4 (182,34)

Is 29:14

ἀπολῶ τὴν σοφίαν τῶν auferam, inquit, sapientiam sapientiσοφῶν καὶ τὴν σύνεσιν τῶν um illorum et prudentiam prudentiσυνετῶν κρύψω um eorum abscondam

Marc 3,6,5 (78,30)

Tertullian

TE work

id demonstrabantur non agnituri et non intellecturi ablatis agnitionis et intellegentiae uiribus, sapientia atque prudentia, quod adnuntiabatur, id est Christus, erraturis in eum principalibus sapientibus eorum, id est scribis, et prudentibus eorum, id est pharisaeis

*Marc 3,6,6 (80,38)

perdam sapientiam sapientium et prudentiam prudentium celabo

Marc 4,25,4 (316,32)

J. Ziegler – O. Munnich – D. Fraenkel (ed.), Sus-Dn-Bel, 97-98. See also p. 61, nn. 27, 29, and 30. The comparison will facilitate an understanding of Tertullian’s linguistic preferences, which Tuukka Kauhanen rightly identifies as important in determining the Greek Vorlagen of this Father’s biblical citations. See “Using patristic evidence. A question of methodology in the textual criticism of the LXX,” XIV Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Helsinki, 2010 (ed. M. K. H. Peters) (SCSt 59; Atlanta 2013) 677-690, 681. 104 105



Tertullian 81

vs

Vorlage

Tertullian

TE work

Jr 1:5

πρὸ τοῦ με πλάσαι σε ἐν κοιλίᾳ ἐπίσταμαί σε

priusquam te in utero fingerem, noui te

an 26,5 (822)

1 Cor 1:19 (Cf. Is 29:14)

γέγραπται γάρ· ἀπολῶ τὴν σοφίαν τῶν σοφῶν καὶ τὴν σύνεσιν τῶν συνετῶν ἀθετήσω

scriptum est enim: perdam sapientiam sapientium et prudentiam prudentium inritam faciam

Marc 5,5,5 (136,30)

auferam sapientiam sapientium et prudentiam prudentium inritam faciam

Marc 5,11,9 (236,91)

aut ad quem consultauit, aut uiam intellectus et scientiae quis demonstrauit ei?

Marc 2,2,4 (26,30)

aut uiam intellegentiae et scientiae quis demonstrauit illi?

Her 17,1 (124,5)

Porro si de aliqua operatus est, necesse est, ab ea ipsa acceperit et consilium et tractatum dispositionis, ut ‘uiam intellegentiae et scientiae’.

*Her 17,2 (124,10)

Sophia autem spiritus: haec illi consiliarius fuit, uia intellegentiae et scientiae ipsa est.

*Her 18,1 (124,7)

Is 40:14 (cf. Rm 11:35)

ἢ πρὸς τίνα συνεβουλεύσατο καὶ συνεβίβασεν αὐτόν; ἢ τίς ἔδειξεν αὐτῷ κρίσιν; ἢ ὁδὸν συνέσεως (Greek 86 φρονήσεως)106 τίς ἔδειξεν αὐτῷ;

Pl. Phd. 65a

τί δὲ δὴ περὶ αὐτὴν τὴν τῆς φρονήσεως κτῆσιν

quid tum erga ipsam prudentiae possessionem

an 18,1 (806)

Pl. Phd. 66a

ἐῶντος τὴν ψυχὴν κτήσασθαι ἀλήθειάν τε καὶ φρόνησιν

permittente animae possidere ueritatem atque prudentiam

an 18,2 (807)

106 Greek 86 gives the reading of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion as καὶ ἐδίδαξεν αὐτὸν γνῶσιν καὶ ὁδὸν φρονήσεως ἐγνώρισεν αὐτῷ. Cf. Jerome’s translation of Symmachus (Is 40:14) in HI Is 11 (1249,52): et instruxit illum scientia et iter prudentiae monstrauit ei.

82

vs

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

Vorlage

ἔστι δ’ ἄνθρωπος οὐχ, Cf. Tat. orat 15,3 ὥσπερ οἱ κορακόφονοι (32,6)107 δογματίζουσι, ζῷον λογικὸν, νοῦ καὶ ἐπιστήμης δεκτικόν108

Tertullian

TE work

hominem facis animal rationale, sensus et scientiae capacissimum

*test 1,5 (38,41)

dum per hos sensus solus omnium homo animal rationale dinoscitur intellegentiae et scientiae capax, et ipsius Academiae

*an 17,11 (805)

utque animal rationale, intellectus et scientiae capax

*Marc 2,4,5 (38,40)

The preceding overview allows us to identify intellegentia (once intellectus)109 and prudentia with σύνεσις. This overlaps with φρόνησις, also translated by prudentia.110 As for ἐπιστήμη, it corresponds to scientia, which remains constant even though νοῦς’s equivalents fluctuate among sensus, intellegentia, and intellectus.111 107 This work is dated to 165-172; see Tatian – Theophilus of Antioch, Tatiani Ad Graecos. Theophili Antiocheni Ad Autolycum (ed. M. Marcovich) (PTS 43–44; Berlin 1995) 1-3. Cf. VINC-C ap AU an 4,2 (381,13) and VINC-C ap AU an 4,37 (415,17): Nam cum Deus bonus nihil non ratione condiderit ipsumque hominem animal rationale, intellectus capacem, rationis compotem sensuque uiuacem, qui omnia rationis expertia prudenti ordinatione distribuat, procreauerit… 108 Emphasis original to Marcovich’s edition. Tatian’s Greek text is used here because it antedates Tertullian’s works and aligns closely with them. That is not to suggest that Tatian, who rejects the definition given by Tertullian, is the latter’s source. For the development of the definition from the Greek philosophers to theologians, especially Tatian, see A. Orbe, “La definición del hombre en la teología del s. II°,” Gr. 48/3 (1967) 522-576, 525-533. 109 Cf. Ps 77:72 in HI ep 106,50,7 (273,23): “Et in intellectibus manuum suarum deduxit eos.” Non habet ἐν τῇ συνέσει, ut scribitis, numero singulari,” sed ἐν ταῖς συνέσεσιν, quod “intellegentias” sonat, sicut habetur et in Hebraeo “bathabunoth,” quod est “intellectibus.” 110 For a similar overlap, see G. Goetz – G. Gundermann (ed.), Corpus Glossariorum Latinorum. II. Glossae Latinograecae et Graecolatinae (Lipsiae 1888) 163. Cf. συνετως | prudenter, sapienter in G. Goetz – G. Löwe (ed.), Corpus Glossariorum Latinorum. II. Glossae Latinograecae et Graecolatinae (Lipsiae 1888) 445. Cf. Cic. off 1,153 (186): Princepsque omnium virtutum illa sapientia, quam σοφίαν Graeci vocant — prudentiam enim quam Graeci φρόνησιν dicunt, aliam quandam intellegimus quae est rerum expetendarum fugiendarumque scientia. Illa autem sapientia, quam principem dixi, rerum est divinarum et humanarum scientia in qua continetur deorum et hominum communitas et societas inter ipsos. 111 For this fluctuation, see Tertullian’s translation of Tat. orat 15,3 (32,6) in the table above. At least by Augustine’s time disciplina was also used to translate ἐπιστήμη. He translates and discusses it in Jb 28:28, which in Greek reads: Ἰδοὺ ἡ θεοσέβειά ἐστιν σοφία, τὸ δὲ ἀπέχεσθαι ἀπὸ κακῶν ἐστιν ἐπιστήμη. AU tri 14,1 (421,11): “Ecce pietas est sapientia; abstinere autem a malis scientia” (siue etiam ut nonnulli de graeco ἐπιστήμην interpretati sunt, “disciplina,” quae utique a discendo nomen accepit, unde et scientia dici potest; ad hoc enim quaeque res discitur ut sciatur, quamuis alia notione in his quae pro peccatis suis mala quisque



Tertullian 83

Tertullian’s citations of Is 40:14 and allusions to his De anima hominis reveal his tendency to pair intellegentia (or intellectus) with scientia, as in Dn 1:17. This is in spite of the fact that his forms of Is 40:14 and Dn 1:17 do not conform literally to any known Greek variants. It may be that his philosophical training has influenced his translations of both of the verses. Nevertheless, for Is 40:14 he does always begin with uia intellegentiae (or intellectus), which appropriately translates either of the extant possibilities for the two words’ Vorlage: LXXo’ ὁδὸς συνέσεως or LXXθ’, along with Aquila and Symmachus, ὁδὸς φρονήσεως. The scientia that always follows may well translate γνῶσις, which appears just two words prior in the LXXθ’ variant. The fact that in Dn 1:17 the order of the pair is scientia then intellegentia, which is against the order in all his other uses of the pair, does suggest that Tertullian is not merely fitting a philosophical concept into the verse at the expense of faithful translation. Given the evidence that Tertullian’s Greek Dn had been corrected toward MT, it may well have lacked the LXXο’ φρονήσεως that follows ἐπιστήμην καὶ σύνεσιν; this would achieve quantitative equivalence with MT’s ‫ׂשּכֵל‬ ְ ‫מַּדָ ע ְו ַה‬, just like the two terms in LXXθ’ σύνεσιν καὶ φρόνησιν. Finally, Tertullian’s intellegentia in Dn 1:17 may well be his simplified translation for the phrase σύνεσις φρονήσεως. The two Greek terms overlap in his translations, for they are each sometimes rendered prudentia. He may well have considered it redundant and inelegant to write *intellegentia prudentiae or *intellegentia prudens, employing instead intellegentia alone, one of his equivalents for σύνεσις. Given the limited data available, a definitive judgement cannot be made. Nevertheless, I prefer the solution just given, which has the virtue of accounting for LXXο’ as it stands. e.3. Recogitatus Tertullian consistently renders the verb διανοέομαι in Dn by phrases containing recogitatus, a Late Latin noun known only from the nine occurrences in his writings and one 5th-c. occurrence.112 The corresponding gerund occurs in Tertullian’s translation of the Phaedo: ἐν τῷ διανοεῖσθαι | in recogitando.113

patitur ut corrigatur dici soleat “disciplina”…). The medieval glossary ascribed to Philoxenus translates ἐπιστήμη | disciplina, peritia, whereas scientia corresponds to γνῶσις, εἴδησις, and ἐμπειρία; G. Goetz – G. Gundermann (ed.), Glossae, 311, 264, 285, 296. This glossary likely transmits much ancient material, for it perpetuates a long tradition of Greek-Latin glossaries; M. Lapidge, “Glossen, Glossare. I. Mittellateinische Literatur,” LMA IV, 1508-1510. 112 These include citations or allusions from Dn 9:2, 10:1. 12. See C. G. van Leijenhorst, “Recogitatus,” TLL XI/2, 378. The other instance is PS-PEL Casp 5, 3, 1 (1460). 113 See the excursus on Pl. Phd. within Te an, p. 57.

84

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

e.4. Consummo The equivalence of LXXο’ συντελέω | consummo vis-à-vis LXXθ’ πλήρωσις in Dn 10:3 is uncertain. In LXXο’ the active voice is used with the first person singular, so one might expect donec *consummarem tres hebdomades for ἕως τοῦ συντελέσαι με τρεῖς ἑβδομάδας; Tertullian in fact has the passive consummarentur. LXXθ’’s use of a noun, ἕως πληρώσεως τριῶν ἑβδομάδων, results in an impersonal expression, yet this does not match the verb consummo as well as LXXο’ συντελέω. Furthermore, Tertullian’s biblical citations do translate τελέω and other verbs of the τελ- root by consummo more frequently than its alternatives, as shown in the table below. Jo 5:36 stands out there, where he also avoids an expected first-person, singular, subjunctive verb. Instead his text translates ἃ δέδωκέν μοι ὁ πατὴρ ἵνα τελειώσω | quae pater mihi dedit consummare. Furthermore, this demonstrates flexibility by shifting from finite verb to infinitive, similar to the flexibility shown for Tertullian’s Dn 10:3 compared to LXXο’, where the shift is from infinitive to finite verb.

vs

Vorlage

Tertullian

work (TE)

Gn 18:21

ὄψομαι εἰ… συντελοῦνται

uidebo si… consummantur

Marc 2,25,6 (154,47)

Gn 49:5

συνετέλεσαν ἀδικίαν

perfecerunt iniquitatem

Marc 3,18,5 (162,38)

Mt 10:23

οὐ μὴ τελέσητε τὰς πόλεις τοῦ Ἰσραὴλ

non consummabitis ciuitates Israelis

fu 6,6 (27,31)

Jo 4:34

τελειώσω αὐτοῦ τὸ ἔργον

ut consummem opus eius

Pra 21,9 (202,39)114

Jo 5:36

ἃ δέδωκέν μοι ὁ πατὴρ ἵνα τελειώσω

quae pater mihi dedit consummare

Pra 21,13 (202,59)

2 Cor 7:1

ἐπιτελοῦντες ἁγιωσύνην

perficientes castimoniam

pud 15,8 (226,33)

114

Cf. the allusion to Jo 4:34 paterni operis perfectio in his prose, in *TE je 15,6 (1274).



Tertullian 85

vs

Vorlage

Tertullian

work (TE)

2 Cor 12:9

ἡ γὰρ δύναμις ἐν ἀσθενείᾳ τελεῖται

uirtus in infirmitate perficitur

Marc 1,29,6 (244,57)115

Phil 3:12

Οὐχ ὅτι ἤδη ἔλαβον ἢ ἤδη τετελείωμαι

non quia iam accepi aut consummatus sum

res 23,8 (950)

2 Tm 4:7

τὸν δρόμον τετέλεκα

cursum consummaui

sco 13,10 (1095)

1 Jo 4:18

ἀλλ᾽ ἡ τελεία ἀγάπη ἔξω βάλλει τὸν φόβον… ὁ δὲ φοβούμενος οὐ τετελείωται ἐν τῇ ἀγάπῃ

perfecta enim dilectio foras abicit timorem… qui timet non est perfectus in dilectione

sco 12,4 (1094)116

Unfortunately πλήρωσις, the Theodotionic variant of Dn 10:12, occurs just 9x in the Greek Bible, and Tertullian does not translate it. Whereas the lack of a personal subject in LXXθ’ ἕως πληρώσεως fits Tertullian’s passive verb, one might rather expect πλήρωσις | *adimpletio or *consummatio if he were in fact following πλήρωσις.117 Indeed, the root πλή- evokes translation by the cognate Latin root, as in the temporal use of πλήρωμα in Tertullian’s Eph 1:10 πλήρωμα τῶν καιρῶν | adimpletio temporum as well as Gal 4:4 ὅτε δὲ ἦλθεν τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου, ἐξαπέστειλεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ | cum autem euenit impleri tempus, misit Deus filium suum.118 Finally, Tertullian follows LXXο’ more often than LXXθ’. For all the above reasons, the likely correspondence in Dn 10:12 is LXXο’ συντελέω | consummo.

This is a line often repeated by Tertullian, e.g. in TE res 9,4 (932) and *TE res 47,14 (986). Cf. 1 Jo 4:18 in TE fu 9,3 (32,27). 117 Tertullian does use consummatio in a temporal sense. E.g. TE spec 29,3 (312,14) in his tibi ludos circenses interpretare, cursus saeculi intuere, tempora labentia dinumera, metas consummationis specta; TE or 5,1 (260) cum regnum Dei, quod ut adueniat oramus, ad consummationem saeculi tendat. He also uses impleo in a temporal sense. E.g. Gal 4:4 in TE Marc 5,4,2 (110,16) Cum autem euenit impleri tempus, misit Deus filium suum; TE Marc 5,4,3 (110,112,25) quod efficeret tempus impleri et iam implendum sustineri? Tertullian uses adimpletio and (ad)implere to refer to prophecy fulfilled, and to that extent they imply the passage of time. E.g. Eph 1:10 πλήρωμα τῶν καιρῶν | adimpletio temporum in TE Marc 5,17,1 (308,8) and *TE mon 5,2 (148,11); Gal 4:4 ὅτε δὲ ἦλθεν τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου | Cum autem euenit impleri tempus in TE Marc 5,4,2 (110,16). Tertullian tends not to use perficere / perfectio for temporal expressions. 118 Eph 1:10 in TE Marc 5,17,1 (308,8) and *TE mon 5,2 (148,11); Gal 4:4 in TE Marc 5,4,2 (110,16) and *TE Marc 5,4,3 (110,112,25). 115 116

86

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

e.5. Deambulo Tertullian’s allusion to Susanna’s garden strolling as deambulo is the first attestation of Sus 7 περιπατέω in Latin, a lexical pairing for Sus attested unanimously in VL119 and taken up into the Vg.120 The word appropriately renders the Greek into Latin, which surely counted in favor of the word’s reception. e.6. Necessitatem habeo Though Tertullian expresses necessity by necessitatem habeo much less frequently than necesse esse,121 this does not mean that he is using an already translated Latin version of Dn 3:16 non habemus necessitatem respondendi (οὐ χρείαν ἔχομεν ἀποκριθῆναι). For he does sometimes use necessitatem habeo,122 and the Greek lends itself to this expression. It then fits his style to follow it with a gerund,123 which he does not do with necesse. So he may well have translated 3:16 directly from the Greek; the stylistic evidence is inconclusive. e.7. Quatenus At Dn 9:23 we find ὑποδεῖξαί σοι ὅτι ἐλεεινὸς εἶ as demonstrare tibi quatenus miserabilis es, where the common VL *quoniam or *quia might be expected. Tertullian thereby emphasizes the causal potential of ὅτι by using quatenus as a causal conjunction.124

VL 176; VL 177; *AM vg 1,45 (22,14). Cf. Lucifer’s Sus 36 ambulo. One finds the same translation at Dn 3:92 in IR 5,5,2 (68,44). By contrast, at Dn 3:24 one finds the simple verb ambulo for περιπατέω in VL 177. Cf. ambulo | περιπατέω at Jb 9:8 in AM fi 5,31 (227), CHRO Mt 52,2 (454,32), etc.; and also at Jb 38:16 in HIL Ps 68,5 (316,23) and AU Jb 38 (604,30). 121 E.g. TE Her 17,2 (124,10): Porro si de aliqua operatus est, necesse est, ab ea ipsa acceperit… ; TE sco 5,1 (1076): Deum interim sufficit dici, ut necesse sit bonum credi; TE sco 9,9 (1085) Qui se christianum confitetur, Christi se esse testatur, qui Christi est, in Christo sit necesse est. He occasionally uses opus esse as well, but not opus *habere. 122 E.g. TE ux 2,2,8 (130,68): Habet igitur ille perseuerandi necessitatem, hic porro etiam non nubendi potestatem; TE an 43,12 (848): sed nihilominus necessitatem habeat rursus corporis agitandi; TE an 2,6 (784): Habuit et philosophia libertatem ingenii et medicina necessitatem artificii. Cf. TE ba 12,3 (22,344): qui semel lauit, non habet necesse rursum (Jo 13:10); TE Her 21,2 (136,7): non tantam fuisse necessitatem aperte significandi; TE res 24,9 (952) de temporibus autem et temporum spatiis, fratres, non est necessitas scribendi uobis (1 Th 5:1); TE cor 11,6 (143) Nulla est necessitas delinquendi, quibus una est necessitas non delinquendi; TE cas 7,5 (94,31) Noli denique digamus deprehendi, et non committis in necessitatem administrandi quod non licet digamo. 123 Many of the examples in the previous footnote illustrate the use of necessitas with a gerund. 124 He was wont to do this, as were some classical authors. See H. Hoppe, Syntax und Stil des Tertullian (Leipzig 1903) 82-83; Hofmann – Szantyr, Lateinische Syntax, 656. 119

120



Tertullian 87

e.8. (Re)uelo It comes as no surprise that Tertullian, author of a work De uirginibus uelandis would take note of Susanna’s chaste vesture for his catechetical purposes. His pairing of uelata / reuelata echoes Sus 32 in its two Greek forms, LXXo’ ἀποκαλύψαι and LXXθ’ ἀποκαλυφθῆναι… κατακεκαλυμμένη. The allusion could depend on either version and suggests an early precedent to the vocabulary of VL 176’s and Lucifer’s reuelari… uelata.125 e.9. Stadium Tertullian provides an allusion to LXXo’ Sus in which we read in stadio mariti non putem uelatam [Susannam] deambulasse where one might expect a translation of *παράδεισος. This surely derives instead from LXXo’ Sus 37 κυκλοῦτες τὸ στάδιον, absent in LXXθ’. Tertullian provides us with no translation of παράδεισος in the context of Sus, where it occurs only 3x in LXXo’ versus 11x in LXXθ’. His use of stadium confirms what we know from some of his other quotations: he was familiar with LXXo’ Sus-Dn-Bel.126 Still, Tertullian shows acquaintance with LXXθ’ as well.127 Even if he did not know it, in LXXo’ παράδεισος outnumbers στάδιον by three to one, so his choice of the minority term is noteworthy. The verb of the clause, deambulo, derives from Sus 7 περιπατέω, a verse which gives παράδεισος as Susanna’s place to walk around. Furthermore, stadium does not fit the context of Joachim and Susanna’s garden, at least by the standards of its ancient use in extant literature. Even στάδιον in this sense is nearly as rare as Tertullian’s quite singular stadium, with just one Greek attestation of the plural to refer to the routes of garden strolls.128 Joachim, Susanna’s husband, owned a παράδεισος, which contained a στάδιον. For Tertullian, author of a now-lost De paradiso, paradisus is a theologically rich term which he employs frequently, especially in his Adversus Marcionem.129 His use of the awkward (at least to us) stadium hints at an avoidance of the Latin cognate of παράδεισος for a context quite different from the Garden of Paradise or of the heavenly one. Indeed, for Tertullian God strolls (deambulo | περιπατέω) in Paradise (paradisus | παράδεισος) in Gn 3:8 (cf. 3:10).130 Had his Bible agreed with Lucifer’s Latinate uiridiarium of the next century, Tertullian could have simply employed LUC Ath 2,8 (92,42). He may have known them in a different order or orders, e.g. Dn-Bel-Sus, and with a different internal ordering of Dn. See p. 29, n. 66. 127 J. Ziegler – O. Munnich – D. Fraenkel (ed.), Sus-Dn-Bel, 96. 128 L. Moretti (ed.), IGUR. III. 1142-1490 (SIISA 28; Romae 1979) 132-133; W. Peek (ed.), Griechische Grabgedichte, griechisch und deutsch (SQAW 7; Berlin 1960) 226-227. 129 TE Marc 1,10,1 (144,3), TE Marc 1,22,8 (204,50), TE Marc 2,4,4 (38,34), TE Marc 5,12,7 (254,61), etc. 130 TE Pra 16,6 (190,41). 125 126

88

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

this word. The threefold attestation of generally infrequent uiridiarium in the Passio sanctarum Perpetuae et Felicitatis, composed at about the same time as the De corona (attesting stadium), shows its intelligibility and at least minimal currency in Northern Africa at the time of Tertullian’s passage at hand. It is almost as if Tertullian is avoiding the theologically charged *paradisus, the most frequent VL interpretation of παράδεισος.131 f. Bearing on question of prior Latin translation In light of the lexical evidence considered throughout this section, let us return132 to the question of whether Tertullian translated his citations of Dn directly from the Greek. Did he know a written Latin version of the book? Surely the most theologically important phrases, such as the Latin translations of ὡς υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου (Dn 7:13) and παλαιὸς ἡμερῶν (7:9. 13. 22) had currency, perhaps in multiple formulations, before Tertullian cited these verses. This could be true of Dn 3:16-18 as well since it is one of the few sections of the book for which Tertullian provides an extended quotation, and would be frequently cited by his fellow Carthaginian Cyprian soon afterwards. That is to say, it seems to be an important passage for the local church of their era. Yet there is no conclusive evidence Tertullian knew a written Latin version of Dn. Indeed, most of Cyprian’s version of Dn 3:16-18 is completely different from his predecessor’s, even in those elements common to the two Greek versions. The fact that in rendering διανοέομαι Tertullian consistently uses recogitatus, a word which appears only in his own writings, suggests that he was indeed working directly from the Greek texts.133 Famulabundus is even rarer: it is a hapax legomenon occurring here only.134 It may well be due to Tertullian’s creativity in translating λατρεύω, as he avoided the rote seruio. Had he been working from a written Latin version or even well-fixed oral translation, we would expect it to persevere at least modestly among subsequent Latin Fathers. Although we have seen that this is sometimes the case, as in uetus dierum, there are no striking instances of a later Father reproducing a matching text of any significant extent. Of course, the transition to LXXθ’ would require changes anyway, but a hypothetical written Latin translation would surely influence the updated Latin version or even be the textual basis for a revision. The evidence favors the hypothesis that Tertullian translated Dn from Greek 131 VL 176 Sus passim and 177 Sus 4. 7; AM ep 34,5 (233,27); *AU s 343,1 (28,9); *AM ep 56,16 (93, 200); *CHRO s 35,4 (160,46); *MAX s Mu 57,2 (229,38.41); *MAX s Mu 58,1 (232,30). 132 See p. 49. 133 He renders the verb by recogito when relating Plato’s Phaedo (65e) in *TE an 18,2 (807). For this correspondence, see the pertinent synopsis on p. 59. Long after Tertullian, there was one other instance of recogitatus in antiquity; see p. 83, n. 112. 134 Tertullian is nearly the only source for the similar famulatorius as well, which occurs just thrice, always outside the context of Dn: TE nat 2,14 (68,12); TE an 33,1 (832); AM fi 5,5 (239,37).



Tertullian 89

to a greater extent than he relied on translations that he had previously encountered, whether written or oral. 3.3. Syntax a. A Hellenism and a Semitism Tertullian’s use of an infinitive following a verb of motion in Dn 9:23 ueni demonstare (ἦλθον ὑποδεῖξαι) is a typical practice both in his prose and his scriptures.135 Without the verb of motion, the Greek infinitive becomes a Latin gerund in 3:16 non habemus necessitatem respondendi (οὐ χρείαν ἔχομεν ἀποκριθῆναι). The style of Tertullian’s Dn is rather simple, reflecting the simplicity of the Greek. The Semitic, paratactic repetition of et… et… et so typical of VL, mirroring Greek literalism, marks the material. Nevertheless, some instances of καί are suppressed in Dn 7:13 and 10:3, easing the heaviness of the paratactic repetition. A postpositive denique improves 10:1, though this may be an adaptation to the flow of Tertullian’s prose. b. Flexible verb tenses The Greek present-tense verbs in Dn 3:18 are rendered by the Latin future tense: famulabimur (λατρεύομεν) and adorabimus (προσκυνοῦμεν),136 bringing them in line with the first verb of the sentence, fiet (ἔσται). Likewise, auferetur (ἀρθῇ) translates a Greek aorist subjunctive by a Latin future indicative. Qui assistebant (οἱ παρεστηκότες) represents another departure from the Greek verbal form, as does famulabunda (λατρεύουσα). Tertullian departs from the usual correspondence between the Greek aorist and Latin perfect when he translates εἶδον by the pluperfect uideram. This is not surprising for a bilingual author of his caliber, for it reflects the fact that Greek often employs the aorist where Latin (and English) has the pluperfect.137 c. Ἕως + articular infinitive The impossibility of a literal Latin translation of the articular infinitive in ἕως τοῦ συντελέσαι με τρεῖς ἑβδομάδας leads to the natural, though not obvious, donec consummarentur tres hebdomades.138 Hoppe, Syntax, 42-43; Cf. Hofmann – Szantyr, Lateinische Syntax, 344-345. Due to the modal sense of these verbs, the meaning remains essentially the same in the present and the future tenses. Cf. Ramos Guerreira, A. “Modo y modalidad,” Sintaxis del latín clásico (coord. J. M. Baños Baños) (Madrid 2009) 405-441, 424-427. 137 Cf. H. W. Smyth – G. M. Messing, Greek Grammar (Revised) (Cambridge, MA 1920, 1984) 1850.2.a. 138 Concerning reliance on LXXo’ for this passage, see the treatment of consummo, p. 84. 135 136

90

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

d. Ἐν = in or ablative noun Tertullian almost always reproduces ἐν by its cognate in, though he improves the Latin style by suppressing the Hebrew idiom in Dn 10:12 in favor of an ablative: ego introiui uerbo tuo (ἐγὼ εἰσῆλθον ἐν τῷ ῥήματί σου). Presumably Tertullian understood uerbo tuo as “at your word” rather than “into your word,” for he never uses the bare ablative case with introeo for the thing entered into. He normally uses the accusative, or the prepositions in or ad with the accusative.139 4. Conclusion VL Dn’s earliest stage is its most complex, and the question of Tertullian’s citations’ fixity in Latin represents a real quandary. There is a strong possibility that he was translating Dn directly from the Greek, which explains the presence of recogitatus in parallel to διανοέομαι, and is consistent with the rest of the linguistic analysis undertaken. The similarity between the Dn translations and those of Plato’s Phaedo also point in this direction. That is not to exclude influence from at least oral translations of key passages, such as Dn 7:13-14. In other words, there was probably a low level of textual fixity, allowing Tertullian to translate or at least liberally adapt the Greek text to his writings. Although Tertullian’s formulations concerning the coming Son of Man in Dn 7:1314 gained some currency, later witnesses mostly diverge from his text. Although there are a couple phrases that happen to match Vg Dn, they do not prove direct influence. Tertullian’s citations of and allusions to Sus-Dn-Bel imply a predominantly LXXo’ Vorlage with plenty of Hebraizing readings interspersed, many of them matching LXXθ’. His is to some extent a “mixed” text not unlike those of the early Greek Fathers. A few decades after Tertullian, LXXo’ will still be discernable within Cyprian’s and his contemporaries’ readings, but LXXθ’ by then shows greater influence on VL Dn and will soon afterwards thoroughly marginalize LXXo’. Justin Martyr and John Chrysostom (in Greek) stand out for their textual affinities to Tertullian, whereas the principal LXXo’ witness, Greek 967, and two LXXθ’ witnesses of the Greek Q group (Greek Q and Greek 230) represent the strongest manuscript correlations. These latter two especially will figure prominently in later chapters of this work. He does twice use in with the ablative case for the thing entered into. The first instance is TE Pra 21,6 (200,26): Cum in templo introiit, aedem patris appellat ut filius. The second is at Jo 3:5 in TE ba 13,3 (25,399): Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu sancto non introibit in regno caelorum obstringit fidem ad baptismi necessitatem. For Tertullian’s use of in with the ablative when the accusative is expected, see Hoppe, Syntax, 40. Cf. Lc 13:28 in *TE Marc 4,30,5 (386,39) cum uidebunt iustos introeuntes in regnum Dei, se uero detineri foris. 139



Tertullian 91

The linguistic analysis situated the features of Tertullian’s biblical Latin within the wider context of his other citations and prose. His vocabulary, which fluctuates for some words and remains constant for others, contains the hapax legomenon famulabunda, an unparalleled use of stadium, and multiple instances of recogitatus, a word nearly exclusive to Tertullian in our record of Latin antiquity. His use of scientia et intellegentia as well as consummo, whose alignment with the Greek texts is obscure, must be considered in comparison to their use elsewhere in his corpus in order to divine their Vorlage. His translation syntax yielded fewer results, in part due to the paucity of direct citations. He showed flexibility by his willingness to incorporate Hellenistic and Semitic features, and to adapt verb tenses according to the context. Tertullian impacted Christian Latin in the formative period at the turn of the 3rd c., beginning with biblical expressions. Like the Latin with which he cited it and alluded to it, Sus-Dn-Bel was also in transition, for its Greek foundation was shifting and its Latin translation would also soon shift. Tertullian provided a framework for this endeavor on which his successors could build.

Chapter 3 THE ADVERSUS IUDAEOS, ATTRIBUTED TO TERTULLIAN

The Adversus Iudaeos’s early date of composition and its numerous citations of Dn justifies a chapter-length analysis. Among such citations, the lengthiest is Dn 9:1-2. 21-27, which is preceded and followed by commentary incorporating shorter citations and allusions. The work almost always aligns with LXXθ’, with just a few short alignments with LXXo’. 1. Unity and authenticity The Adversus Iudaeos is attributed to Tertullian, but doubts concerning the work’s unity and authenticity have never been resolved, with various solutions having been proposed.1 Its first eight chapters are dated to the late 2nd c., sometimes the year 197, and read differently from chapters nine through fourteen. Sometimes the division between the work’s two halves is made not at the end of chapter eight but within it. Although the authenticity of the first half has been questioned, the second half is more frequently considered inauthentic. Some argue that the two halves were written by the same author, whether Tertullian himself or another African, whereas others propose a different author for each half. Be that as it may, any light shed on these vexed problems in the present work comes from the limited perspective of the comparison of citations of Dn. It is hoped that others will incorporate these results into a comprehensive, multidisciplinary investigation into the work’s unity and authenticity. As mentioned above,2 the Beuron VL editions typically will bracket the abbreviation of Tertullian’s name (“[TE] Jud”) to signal inauthenticity when citing this work. A recent exception to this practice is found in the ongoing edition of VL Jo, which does not use such brackets for the Adversus Iudaeos.3 Various editions of the 1 M. Åkerman, Über die Echtheit der letzteren (!) Hälfte von Tertullians Adversus Iudaeos (Diss. Uppsala University; Lund, Sweden 1918) 10-16; C. Mohrmann, review of G. Säflund, De Pallio und die stilistische Entwicklung Tertullians (SSIR; Lund, Sweden 1955), REL 33 (1955) 423-425, 424-425. More literature follows in the footnotes of the present chapter, which lays out more thoroughly the positions summarized in the present paragraph. 2 P. 34. 3 P. H. Burton et al. (ed.), Evangelium secundum Iohannem (VL 19; Freiburg im Breisgau 2011[2013]). See, e.g. Jo 5:35, where TE Jud 9 is cited without brackets. By contrast, one does find the brackets, for example, used for [EUCH] int 1 at Jo 1:18.

94

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

Beuron institute’s manuals for these abbreviations reflect growing suspicion. In his 1949 first edition, Bonifatius Fischer wrote, “der zweite Teil (cap. 9-14) ist wohl nur ein späterer Auszug aus TE Marc 3, wenn nicht das ganze Stück unecht ist.”4 In his second edition he simply stated that the work is “wahrscheinlich unecht.”5 When Hermann Frede took over the manual, he dated the work to 197 but added more assertively than Fischer, “mindestens die Bibelzitate sind sicher unecht.”6 The editors of VL Jo must not be so convinced. Geoffrey Dunn and Julien Cazenave have recently collated lists of writers taking positions for or against the authenticity of the Adversus Iudaeos.7 Nevertheless, the reader is advised to use these lists with care, making his or her own verifications.8 Since our principal concerns here are the biblical citations and which ones, if any, should be treated as authentic, two key authors should be added to said lists. They both make their arguments from biblical citations and advocate the inauthenticity and unity of the whole work. The first of the two, each of which wrote long footnotes on the topic, is Burkitt.9 Although the situation is more complicated than he acknowledges,10 his reasoning is sound. He notes that the Adversus Iudaeos differs from Tertullian’s other citations of Dn insofar as it relies upon LXXθ’. This, of course, does not apply to those sections of the work, all of which are found in its second half, taken from Tertullian’s Adversus Marcionem. Burkitt also notes that when the Adversus Iudaeos differs from the Adversus Marcionem, it tends to agree with Cyprian’s Testimonia.11 Finally, he identifies points of contact between the Adversus Iudaeos and Pseudo-Cyprian’s De pascha computus. Given all this, Burkitt concludes that it would be remarkable that Tertullian, in the only instance in which he relies on LXXθ’, also tends to agree with Verzeichnis (11949), 102. B. Fischer, Verzeichnis der Sigel für Kirchenschriftsteller (VL 1/1; Freiburg im Breisgau 21963) 465. 6 Kirchenschriftsteller. Verzeichnis und Sigel (VL 1/1; Freiburg im Breisgau 31981) 553; Kirchenschriftsteller. Verzeichnis und Sigel (VL 1/1; Freiburg im Breisgau 41995) 766. 7 G. D. Dunn, “Tertullian and Daniel 9:24-27. A Patristic Interpretation of a Prophetic Time-Frame,” ZAC 6/2 (2002) 330-344, 330, n. 2; J. Cazenave, “Le traité Adversus Judaeos de Tertullien. Essai sur ses auteurs et ses destinataires,” Pal. 83 (2010) 313-330, 318, nn. 26-28. Cf. K. Zelzer – P. L. Schmidt, “Q. Septimius Florens Tertullianus. 5. Adversus Iudaeos,” GRL. IV. Die literatur des Umbruchs. Von der römischen zur christlichen Literatur. 117 bis 284 n. Chr. (ed. K. Sallmann) (HAW 8/IV; München 1997) 452-455. 8 An example of these lists’ shortcomings is Dunn’s omission of Malte Åkerman’s entire monograph on the topic: Echtheit. Furthermore, he seems to overlook the not inconsiderable number of scholars who call into question even the first half of the work. For his part, Cazenave includes Ernest Evans among those who endorse the authenticity of the first half but deny that of the second. The latter’s true position is that the first eight chapters “lack much of the forthright vigour of Tertullian’s usual writing, though they may well be the work of a contemporary and imitator of his;” E. Evans, introduction to Tertullian of Carthage, Adversus Marcionem. I. Books 1 to 3. II. Books 4-5 (ed. E. Evans) (OECT; Oxford 1972) ix-xxiii, xx. 9 Old Latin, 29, n. 1. See also ibidem, 7, n. 1. 10 See the critique made by H. Tränkle, introduction to Tertullian of Carthage, Adversus Iudaeos. Mit Einleitung und kritischem Kommentar (Wiesbaden 1964) i-cxxviii, xii-xiii. 11 For Sus-Dn-Bel, there is but an allusion in [TE] Jud that overlaps with Cyprian: at Dn 2:34 both have the plus concidentium, in CY te 2,17 (53,7) and *[TE] Jud 3,8 (8,9). 4 5



THE ADVERSUS IUDAEOS, ATTRIBUTED TO TERTULLIAN 95

Cyprian. Thus he excludes Adversus Iudaeos from his study, considering its citations inauthentic. Paul Capelle’s excursus must be considered as well.12 He compares citations of the Psalms within the first and second halves of the Adversus Iudaeos to corresponding, authentic citations by Tertullian. He concludes that the attribution to Tertullian is erroneous for both halves.13 Although Tränkle rightly protests that it is Tertullian’s style to change citations, he does not address Capelle’s arguments concerning the frequency and consistency of certain citations in authentic works, nor does he address the argument concerning certain words to which Tertullian is particularly attached.14 Some such words are found consistently in authentic works but not in the Adversus Iudaeos. The present work follows Burkitt’s example in separating the biblical citations of the Adversus Iudaeos of Dn from Tertullian’s authentic material. The current state of research allows but does not impose this division; time will tell whether a consensus is possible for or against this position. In any case, to Burkitt’s and Capelle’s arguments one may add that the spurious work even uses LXXθ’ for verses elsewhere cited by Tertullian according to LXXo’. At Dn 9:21 it follows LXXθ’ τῇ ὁράσει with uisione, against ἐν τῷ ὕπνῳ | in somnis in Tertullian’s De ieiunio adversus psychicos, from LXXo’.15 At Dn 9:23 it pairs ἀναγγέλλω | adnuntio, from LXXθ’, against the authentic, LXXo’-derived ὑποδείκνυμι | demonstro.16 Reinhard Bodenmann, examining these passages, hypothesizes that the Adversus Iudaeos is authentic.17 Tertullian merely employed one of three text types at his disposal, perhaps here one of his two text types of Jewish (or Judeo-Christian) origin for his anti-Jewish polemics.18 This Capelle, Psautier, 6, n. 1. Hans von Soden cites Capelle to support his judgment that the whole work is inauthentic; “Der lateinische Paulustext bei Marcion und Tertullian. Zum 70. Geburtstag, 26. Januar 1927,” Festgabe für Adolf Jülicher (ed. A. Jülicher – R. Bultmann – H. von Soden) (Tübingen 1927) 229-281, 259, n. 1. Von Soden’s other source is M. Schanz – C. Hosius – G. Krüger, GRL. III. Die Zeit von Hadrian 117 bis auf Constantin 324 (HAW 8/III; München 31922) 293. 13 It should be noted that Capelle follows the “traditional” division between the end of chapter eight and the beginning of chapter nine. Others claim that the second half begins already within chapter eight; indeed, Åkerman makes the division just a dozen words prior to Capelle’s example intended to represent the first half of the work. See Capelle, Psautier, 6, n. 1; Åkerman, Echtheit, 11. 14 Introduction to Tertullian of Carthage, Adversus Iudaeos, xiii-xiv. 15 [TE] Jud 8,4 (15,23); TE je 10,13 (1269). 16 [TE] Jud 8,4 (16,1); TE je 7,8 (1264). 17 Naissance d’une Exégèse, 89-94. 18 He identifies the mixed text types of Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and Cyprian, which contain elements of both LXXθ’ and LXXo’, as concrete instances of Proto-Theodotion’s work; Bodenmann, Naissance d’une Exégèse, 63-86, 95-100. For these also, in addition to the LXXθ’-derived citations of the Adversus Iudaeos, he proposes a Jewish origin. Ultimately he assigns three text types to Tertullian’s Dn: LXXo’, LXXθ’, and the mixed type. One can ask the following question of this theory encompassing texts by three Fathers: if Cyprian’s text really derives from Proto-Theodotion’s work, still awaiting further revision to become LXXθ’, why does Cyprian have the conflation palea aut puluis (LXXo’ ἀχύρου + LXXθ’ κονιορτός) at Dn 2:35 in CY te 2,17 (53,9)? Rather than an unfinished LXXθ’, this seems to be truly an instance of mixing of two text types. Given Cyprian’s conflation and the general phenomenon of occasional admixture of LXXo’ into LXXθ’ manuscripts, it is more likely that the Adversus Iudaeos, similarly, is a LXXθ’ witness “corrupted” by LXXo’ readings. Cf. p. 73, n. 77 and p. 131, n. 24. 12

96

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

solution, however, unnecessarily complicates the matter. It appears to start from the supposition that the Adversus Iudaeos is authentic and thereupon manufactures a reason for its divergence from the De ieiunio adversus psychicos.19 The divergence of these two works’ citations of Dn 9 should instead be counted as support against the already suspect authenticity of the former. In any case, whether authentic or not, the Dn citations of the first half of the Adversus Iudaeos are strikingly different from those of the uncontested Tertullian. For this reason, along with its possible inauthenticity, it is fitting to treat the Adversus Iudaeos separately. 2. Text-critical analysis It should first be noted that the Dn material in the Adversus Iudaeos is unique. It contains readings traceable to no known Greek text. The commentary on Dn 9 suggests the author knew and used an additional Vorlage, different from that of the lemma. The material from this section comes from the first part of the work, commonly dated to the late 2nd c.20 Unique readings without any obvious parallel among the extant Greek texts include those of the following table. LXXθ’

Adversus Iudaeos

2:34

×

concidentium

9:25

γνώσῃ καὶ συνήσεις

scies et percipies et intelleges

9:25

τοῦ ἀποκριθῆναι

in integrando

9:25

δύο

duae et dimidia

9:25

*ἐκκαινωθήσονται21

innouabuntur

9:26

τὰς ἑξήκοντα (+ καὶ 62) δύο

sexaginta et duas 22

vs

It should be added that Bodenmann, like Tränkle, sees the citations in the Adversus Iudaeos as no reason to deny the work’s authenticity; Naissance d’une Exégèse, 83, n. 229; 93-94; 358. Since he only studied citations of Dn, from an outdated edition (ibidem, 343-345), in a study not focused primarily on biblical textual transmission, his claims go well beyond the evidence presented. 20 Even under proposals to make the division between the first and second part fall within [TE] Jud 8, rather than at the end of the chapter, the Dn 9 lemma and commentary are prior to the division. See Åkerman, Echtheit, 10-11. 21 This credible reconstruction, derived from ἐκκενωθήσονται, is treated by J. Ziegler – O. Munnich – D. Fraenkel (ed.), Sus-Dn-Bel, 162. 22 For the reconstruction , “improved” to semis in a manuscript, see H. Tränkle, commentary on Tertullian of Carthage, Adversus Iudaeos. Mit Einleitung und kritischem Kommentar (Wiesbaden 1964) 43-115, 72. 19



THE ADVERSUS IUDAEOS, ATTRIBUTED TO TERTULLIAN 97

2.1. Relation to other VL witnesses a. The De pascha computus Since the Pseudo-Cyprianic De pascha computus from AD 243 overlaps with the Adversus Iudaeos for Dn 9:24-27 and exhibits many similarities to it, a comparison of the two will aid in the contextualization of the enigmatic polemical text. The passage was obviously important to the African church of the late 2nd and early 3rd c. for it to be cited by both authors in full. Although a similar milieu can account for the independent composition of similar translations, the two works present the passage with enough agreements, even in details, to suggest that they are not independent translations. Similarities include the use of passive, finite verbs at Dn 9:24 to render Greek infinitives that are both active and passive. Both Latin works also use the same demonstrative hic for τὰς ἑβδομάδας τὰς ἑξήκοντα | ebdomadas has sexaginta at Dn 9:26 and τὴν ἐρήμωσιν | hanc uastationem at 9:27.23 The latter verse shows their closest agreement: Adversus Iudaeos

De pascha computus

et confirmabit testamentum in multis ebdomada una et × dimidia ebdomadis auferetur meum sacrificium et libatio et in × sancto exsecratio uastationis et usque ad finem temporis consummatio dabitur super hanc uastationem

et confirmabit testamentum × multis hebdomas una et in dimidio hebdomadis auferetur meum sacrificium et libatio et super illum24 sanctum execratio uastationum et usque ad consummationem temporis consummatio dabitur super hanc uastationem

The De pascha computus shows greater concern to reproduce the Greek literally. This can be seen in the omission of the first in, which has no support in the Greek witnesses,25 and in the consistent pairing of συντέλεια | consummatio where the Adversus Iudaeos has both finis and consummatio. The De pascha computus, for the verb of the same root at Dn 9:24, pairs συντελέω | consummo, showing consistency even beyond the noun. Whereas the Adversus Iudaeos began by pairing συντέμνω | breuio 23 To locate Pseudo-Cyprian’s citations, see p. 39. Note that for Dn 9:26 he retains has in the lemma only, not the citation within his commentary. 24 For the use of illum as a neuter, instead of illud, see p. 140, n. 34. Whereas illum is the reading of the lemma, the same work has illud when the verse is cited within the commentary. 25 Tränkle helpfully contextualizes the phenomenon as normal for the work and for the VL in general, in his commentary on Tertullian of Carthage, Adversus Iudaeos, 70-71.

98

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

and ended with συντετμημένου | quod concidetur, the other work shows consistency by sharing the initial pairing and following it with συντετμημένου | breuiati later on. To the use of hic for the article, the De pascha computus adds ille as well;26 at Dn 9:24 it has τὴν πόλιν τὴν ἁγίαν | ciuitatem illam sanctam, and at 9:26 τὸ ἅγιον… τῷ ἡγουμένῳ τῷ ἐρχομένῳ | illum sanctum… illo duce qui ueniet. These are lacking in the Adversus Iudaeos. Most of the rest of the differences between the two Latin texts can be attributed to the reviser using a different Vorlage than the previous translator.27 In general the De pascha computus aligns more closely to known Greek texts than does the Adversus Iudaeos. The Cyprianic cognosces for γνώσῃ corresponds to the doublet scies et percipies in the polemical work. Where the Adversus Iudaeos attests a unique number of weeks the De pascha computus aligns with LXXθ’ once again. The former work’s mysterious in integrando et aedificando corresponds to the Cyprianic, Greek-aligned ut respondeatur et ut aedificetur. Whereas the verb integro has no support in the Greek witnesses, in the De pascha computus the long series of Greek infinitives begun just before this passage is consistently rendered by Latin passives. Innouabuntur in the Adversus Iudaeos, which surely derives from the unattested *ἐκκαινωθήσονται either in the translator’s manuscript or his misreading thereof, corresponds to the pairing ἐκκενωθήσονται | exinanientur in the Cyprianic work. Since the first half of the Adversus Iudaeos and the De pascha computus are dated with some confidence and represent the passage of nearly half a century from one to the other, one assumes that the Adversus Iudaeos transmits the older biblical text. It does contain a doublet and lectiones faciliores from the standpoint of the Latin reader. Nevertheless, it is known that scribes sometimes used Greek manuscripts to bring earlier, freer Latin translations closer to the source language. It seems that this is the case here: the De pascha computus represents the revision of the text type represented in the Adversus Iudaeos. Given the reviser’s apparent interest in bringing the text closer in line with the Greek, it is noteworthy that he preserves the plus concidentium at Dn 2:34, nowhere attested in extant Greek sources. Did the translator and reviser have an equivalent in their Greek text, now lost? Perhaps. However, as was noted, the reviser’s interest in literality was not absolute. The plus could be an embellishment dating back to 2nd-c. Latin-speaking Christians, one which was deemed too important to omit from this passage popular among patristic authors. If that was the case, liturgical considerations likely played a role in the reviser’s retention of the plus. Although conci26 Ille took on article-like nuance in sub-literary Latin as early as Plautus, and also served to translate the Greek article; see Hofmann – Szantyr, Lateinische Syntax, 191-192. It became the definite article in most of the Romance languages; see Väänänen, Latin vulgaire, § 275. 27 The Greek textual affiliations of the De pascha computus will be discussed along with authentic Cyprianic works, beginning at p. 134.



THE ADVERSUS IUDAEOS, ATTRIBUTED TO TERTULLIAN 99

dentium otherwise disappeared from the verse after Pseudo-Cyprian, the variation precidentium survived in the sacred liturgy.28 To sum up, sometime between the late 2nd c. and the composition of De pascha computus in 243, a reviser (or revisers) used a LXXθ’-type Vorlage on a Latin text of the type found in the Adversus Iudaeos. This reviser shows greater interest in producing a literal translation from the Greek, establishing certain lexical equivalents throughout the passage and suppressing a relative phrase in favor of a participle to parallel the Greek one. Although satisfied enough with the use of hic to retain as an equivalent to the Greek article, his own preference is for ille, added three times to the passage. b. Other VL witnesses Besides the De pascha computus there are a couple of other noteworthy agreements with the Adversus Iudaeos: one of them with VL 176 and Evagrius Gallicus, and the other with the Mozarabic Antiphonary. VL 176 offers a fragmentary version of Dn 9:25, which is interesting for its use of in before (apparent) gerunds. The first part of the verse, as reconstructed by Dold, exactly matches Evagrius Gallicus’s Altercatio legis inter Simonem Iudaeum et Theophilum Christianum, from ca. 430. Although the latter is known to use material from the Adversus Iudaeos, in this case it seems more likely that he did not since his text is closer to VL 176. The Adversus Iudaeos’s Dn 9:25 contains elements particular to both Greek text types, but neither text offers a phrase similar in meaning to in integrando, neither with respect to the preposition nor with respect to the choice of verb. LXXθ’ reads τοῦ ἀποκριθῆναι,29 an awkward verb to stand in parallel with what follows: καὶ τοῦ οἰκοδομῆσαι (Ιερουσαλημ). Perhaps that very difficulty in understanding τοῦ ἀποκριθῆναι led the translator to write in integrando, which is easier for the reader to process here than ἀποκριθῆναι. The two gerunds both refer to the rebuilding of Jerusalem. Does the Adversus Iudaeos represent a text type that was later revised on LXXθ’ to produce that of VL 176 and Evagrius, during which process the construction in-plus-gerund survived, despite its lack of a direct Greek equivalent? The same hypothetical revision would explain the closer adherence to the Greek verbs by suppressing percipies and revising integrando to respondendo.

28 29

See p. 118. One manuscript, Greek 410, omits the article.

100

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

Adversus Iudaeos

VL 176 (and Evagrius Gallicus)

et scies et percipies et intelleges: a profectione sermonis in integrando et aedificando Hierusalem usque ad Christum

scies × et inrmonis in aedificanue ad Christum

The other noteworthy agreement with the Adversus Iudaeos is that of the Mozarabic Antiphonary, which at Dn 9:23 shares the pairing δέησις | obsecratio.30 It is indeed an ancient one, for it is also attested in an undisputed work of Tertullian.31 The agreement at Dn 9:23 underscores the ancient, African element of the liturgy on the Iberian Peninsula. 2.2. Agreement with LXXθ’ The vast majority of this material follows LXXθ’, even in passages for which Tertullian principally follows LXXo’. Here one can see the contrast:

vs 9:2

Adversus Iudaeos LXX

LXXo’

Tertullian

ἐγὼ Δανιηλ διενοήθην ἐν τοῖς βιβλίοις τὸν ἀριθμὸν τῶν ἡμερῶν

(allusion:)32 cum ego Daniel intellexi in ex recogitatu libris numerum praedicatorum annorum temporum

θ’

ἐγὼ Δανιηλ συνῆκα ἐν ταῖς βίβλοις τὸν ἀριθμὸν τῶν ἐτῶν

ANT-M 238v (185). Jer 14:12 in TE pud 2,4 (154,18). 32 Note the similarity between Tertullian’s manner of allusion to this biblical text and his close allusion to Pl. Phd. 65e-66a in *TE an 18,2 (807); see the excursus beginning on p. 57. 30 31



THE ADVERSUS IUDAEOS, ATTRIBUTED TO TERTULLIAN 101

vs 9:21

9:23

θ’

LXXo’

Tertullian

Adversus Iudaeos LXX

λαλοῦντός μου ἐν τῇ προσευχῇ μου καὶ ἰδοὺ ὁ ἀνήρ, ὃν εἶδον ἐν τῷ ὕπνῳ μου τὴν ἀρχήν, Γαβριηλ, τάχει φερόμενος προσήγγισέ μοι

loquente me in oratione,

me loquente in oratione

ecce uir, quem uideram in somnis initio, uelociter uolans appropinquauit mihi

ecce uir Gabriel quem uidi in uisione in pricipio

ἐμοῦ λαλοῦντος ἐν τῇ προσευχῇ καὶ (om. codd) ἰδοὺ ἀνὴρ Γαβριηλ, ὃν εἶδον ἐν τῇ ὁράσει ἐν τῇ ἀρχῇ,

uolans et tetigit me

πετόμενος καὶ ἥψατό μου

ἐγὼ ἦλθον ὑποδεῖξαί σοι, ὅτι ἐλεεινὸς εἶ

ueni, inquit, demonstrare tibi, quatenus miserabilis es

ego ueni ut adnuntiem tibi, quia uir desideriorum tu es

ἐγὼ ἦλθον τοῦ ἀναγγεῖλαί σοι, ὅτι ἀνὴρ ἐπιθυμιῶν σὺ εἶ

Despite the predominant role of LXXθ’ as the work’s Vorlage, there are nevertheless scattered agreements with LXXo’. This is no surprise since such agreements are common within the manuscript tradition of LXXθ’. Indeed, the contamination worked both ways, given the Theodotionic interpolations into Greek 967.33 The first “contamination” from LXXo’ presented in the following table, ἐπί | sub, is one such example with support in the LXXθ’ tradition. For the second one (εἰς πλάτος | in latitudinem), the allusion that follows has the agreement εἰς πλάτος καὶ μῆκος | in latitudinem et longitudinem. If in latitudinem is unexpected within a translation of LXXθ’, it is even more surprising to find it surviving within a Vg-based liturgical antiphon.34 If the liturgical use of in latitudinem preceded the Adversus Iudaeos, it could have influenced its biblical translation. Since liturgical need was a driver of VL production, this seems more likely than the reverse scenario, in which the text type of the patristic work later made its way into the liturgy.

33 34

See p. 47, n. 121. *ANT-M 263v (438) alludes to Dn 9:25: et iterum haedificetur Iherusalem in latitudinem templi sui.

102

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

vs LXXo’ with Jud

θ’

Advers. Iudaeos

with Jud LXX

Var

in primo anno sub Dario filio Assueri

Ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ ἔτει × Δαρείου τοῦ υἱοῦ Ασουήρου

Ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ ἔτει ἐπὶ (A′) Δαρείου τοῦ υἱοῦ Ασουήρου

9:25/ 9:27 27 ἀνοικοδομηθήσεται εἰς πλάτος καὶ μῆκος 9:27 ἀνοικοδομηθήσεται εἰς πλάτος καὶ μῆκος

(9:25 lemma:) aedificabitur in latitudinem et conuallationem (commentary:) aedificabitur in latitudinem et longitudinem

9:25 οἰκοδομηθήσεται πλατεῖα καὶ τεῖχος 9:25 οἰκοδομηθήσεται πλατεῖα καὶ περιτεῖχος

9:26 ἀποσταθήσεται χρῖσμα καὶ οὐκ ἔσται

exterminabitur unctio et non erit

ἐξολεθρευθήσεται χρῖσμα, καὶ κρίμα οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν αὐτῷ

9:1 Ἔτους πρώτου ἐπὶ Δαρείου τοῦ Ξέρξου

περιτεῖχος (codd)

ἐξολεθρευθήσεται χρῖσμα, καὶ κρίμα οὐκ ἔσται ἐν αὐτῷ (codd)

2.3. Agreements with Greek witnesses Although there is no single, overwhelming affinity with a single group of Greek witnesses when the Latin text under consideration does not reflect LXXθ’, the agreements with Lucianic witnesses and the Greek Alexandrian manuscripts are the most numerous. When Lucianic witnesses agree with the Latin, John Chrysostom and Theodoret are always among them (6x). Besides them are the various groupings of Lucianic manuscripts. The Alexandrian group also stands out (6x in lemmas), that is, Greek A and its minuscules, among which Greek 410 appears thrice in lemmas and once in commentary. Within the Greek Q group, there is a unique agreement with Greek 233, one close association with Greek 230-233, and a close one between Greek 230 and a Latin allusion. In two instances the only Greek support for a reading comes from a single catena manuscript, Greek 91, and Greek 130 (Greek B group). Finally, it is interesting to see that the lemma for this passage does not always rely on the same textual tradition as does the commentary. The unique agreement with Greek 233 by homoioteleuton, given the manuscript group’s association with other early, African witnesses in Latin,35 should 35

See pp. 73, 134.



THE ADVERSUS IUDAEOS, ATTRIBUTED TO TERTULLIAN 103

be used to restore the manuscript reading to the edition for Dn 9:25; the conjectured insertion just prior to sexaginta et duae et dimidia, can be omitted. Pseudo-Tertullian’s lemma introduces the total number of weeks, seventy, in the previous verse (9:24). Then begins their subdivision at Dn 9:25, counting off sixty-two and a half weeks. Because of the minus, it is only by mathematical subtraction that the reader of the lemma can conclude that there are a final seven and a half weeks remaining in the prophecy. In verse 27 there is mention of a week and a half, apparently part of the final seven and a half weeks.36 So the minus leaves the reader to assume the sixty-two and a half weeks come first, then after these weeks (post ebdomadas has, verse 26) more apocalyptic events occur before the end of the seventy weeks (usque ad finem temporis, verse 27). The resulting reordering from LXXθ’ “seven then sixty-two then one” to the Adversus Iudaeos’s “sixty-two and a half then seven and a half” may well be the source of this work’s peculiar interpretation, which counts off the sixty-two and a half weeks first.37 That interpretation lends further support to the manuscripts of the Adversus Iudaeos, already supported by Greek 233, against the conjectured insertion. Admittedly, the Adversus Iudaeos does speak of the “seven and a half weeks” soon after the lemma, despite their absence within it. Two points can be made in this regard. First, this could result from simple, mathematical subtraction of sixty-two and a half from seventy. Indeed, the chapter’s commentary relies heavily on mathematics. That sixty-two and a half was subtracted from seventy, without taking into account the “week and a half” from the lemma (resulting in six weeks) can be explained by the fact that the week and a half is included as part of the seven and a half. The author was not interested in aligning historical events with this week and a half.38 Second, we know that the commentary betrays variant readings not contained in the lemma, that is, another textual tradition of Dn. Although we have no evidence elsewhere of the seven and a half (nor sixty-two and a half), the author may well have been aware of the seven weeks of LXXθ’. In short, the mention of the seven and a half weeks in the commentary is not evidence enough to support the conjected insertion into the lemma of Dn 9:25.

See the interpretation at [TE] Jud 8 (16,16). See also Bodenmann, Naissance d’une Exégèse, 354. Our only other knowledge of an interpretation placing the sixty-two weeks (without the half-week) first comes from Jerome at HI Dn 3 (887,584). Jerome presents this as a Jewish interpretation, but that has been contested; J. Smeets, “Traditions juives dans la Vulgate de Daniel et le Commentaire de Jérôme,” SIDIC 12/2 (1979) 16-26, 25; cf. Jerome of Stridon, Commentaire sur Daniel (ed. R. Courtray) (SC 602; Paris 2019) 393, n. 3, and 396, n. 1; Bodenmann, Naissance d’une Exégèse, 347-348. Jerome, just previous to this, paraphrases how “the Hebrews” interpret this passage at HI Dn 3 (886,551). Within the paraphrase the sixty-two are mentioned first, and then the seven, but chronologically the seven are here connected to events prior to the sixty-two (like the Masoretic text and LXXθ’). 38 See the interpretation at [TE] Jud 8 (16,16). See also Bodenmann, Naissance d’une Exégèse, 354. 36 37

104

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

Let it be noted that the full LXXθ’ apparatus has been simplified in the table below; all the direct witnesses have been listed, but many of the indirect ones have been removed. The reader should also be aware that the citation of Dn 7:13-14, which matches Tertullian’s Adversus Marcionem and was treated as such, has not been included.39 It appears in the latter half of the Adversus Iudaeos, for which the authenticity is in greater doubt.

vs 9:1 9:21

θ’

Vorlage

Adversus Iudaeos

×

ἐπί A′ (=LXXo’)

sub

καί

× A′’ 410

×

ἕως τοῦ παλαιωθῆναι τὸ παράπτωμα καί τοῦ τελεσθῆναι (συντελ. 88) ἁμαρτίαν L′’ Chr. (om. τό) Tht.

quoadusque inueteretur delictum × × × ×

LXX

9:24 συντελεσθῆναι ἁμαρτίαν

τοῦ

9:24

προφήτην

προφήτην (=LXXθ’)

(lemma and allusions:) prophetes

9:24

προφήτην

προφητείαν 230 410

(allusions in commentary:) prophetiam

9:25

ἑβδομάδες ἑπτὰ καὶ ἑβδομάδες

ἑβδομάδες × × × 233

ebdomades

9:25

τεῖχος

περιτεῖχος A′’ L′-88 87c-49c-405 46 Chr.lem Tht.

conuallationem

9:26

× δύο

et duo

9:26

κρίμα

καί δύο 62 = 𝔐

× = LXXo’ and 𝔐

×

39 Curiously, Dn 7:13-14a matches the version given in TE Marc 3,7,4 (88,25), whereas 7:14b matches TE Marc 4,39,11 (486,98).



THE ADVERSUS IUDAEOS, ATTRIBUTED TO TERTULLIAN 105

vs

LXX

θ’

Vorlage

Adversus Iudaeos

9:26

× ἐν κατακλυσμῷ

ὡς ἐν κατακλυσμῷ L′-88 Chr. Tht.

quomodo in cataclysmo

9:26

καί (ἕως)

× (ἕως) lI

× (usque in)

9:26

ἀφανισμοί

ἀφανισμόν 46′’ 230 239 410

usque ad interitum

9:27

ἐν τῷ

× O L′-88 C′ 26 410 Chr. Tht.

×

9:27

ἑβδομὰς μία καὶ ἐν τῷ ἡμίσει τῆς ἑβδομάδος

within doublet: ἑβδομὰς μία καὶ ἥμισυ τῆς ἑβδομάδος 91

ebdomada una et dimidia ebdomadis

9:27

ἑβδομάδος ×

ἑβδομάδος × (=LXXθ’) Btxt 230’ Chr. Tht.

(lemma:) ebdomadis ×

9:27

(ἑβδομάδος)40

(ἑβδομάδος)

(allusions in commentary:) destrui pinnaculum usque ad interitum (2x)… cessauerunt illic libamina et sacrificia

× ×

καταπαύσει θυσιαστήρια καὶ θυσίας καὶ ἕως πτερυγίου ἀπὸ ἀφανισμοῦ codd

9:27

ἐπὶ τὸ ἱερὸν

ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ 130 Aeth

in sancto

9:27

τῶν ἐρημώσεων

τῆς ἐρημώσεως L′-88770 Chr. Tht.

uastationis

40 Ἑβδομάδος is used here because one will find the plus in the next column (καταπαύσει…) given after this word in the apparatus. Nevertheless, since neither ἑβδομάδος nor its Latin translation is at issue here, it is presented above in parentheses.

106

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

3. Linguistic analysis Like Tertullian’s citations in the previous chapter, these pseudonymous ones have some remarkable linguistic features, including a hapax legomenon. Even so, their similarity with the the citations of mid-3rd-c. Carthage stands out more. For instance, they share the frequent use of nouns in -io and the changing of the voice of verbs vis-à-vis the Greek. 3.1. Morphology Let us begin with the morphology. There is a prevalence of nouns in -io, even when the Vorlage does not suggest one via the verbal noun ending -σις.41 The more obvious the alternative translations, the more remarkable these are. For example, ὅρασις, translated uisio here, is uisus for Cyprian and Lucifer, a word found in alternation with uisio in the commentary of the Adversus Iudaeos. Instead of ἔξοδος | profectio one finds exitus in Pseudo-Cyprian, initium in an early work of Jerome, and prouentus in Hilaniarus. Conuallatio is an absolute Latin hapax, where one might expect the more common uallum, murus, or moenia. The pairing χρῖσμα | unctio is not so surprising for this early work; though Tertullian and Cyprian each use chrisma once, they gloss it immediately with unctio.42 Vorlage

Adversus Iudaeos

προσευχή

oratio

ὅρασις, ὀπτασία

uisio

9:23

δέησις

obsecratio

9:25

ἔξοδος

profectio

9:25

περιτεῖχος

conuallatio

9:26

χρῖσμα

unctio

9:27

βδέλυγμα

exsecratio

9:27

ἐρήμωσις

uastatio

9:27

συντέλεια

consummatio

vs 9:21 9:21. 23-24

41 Cf. Rönsch, Itala, 69-82; C. Mohrmann, “La structure du latin paléochrétien,” Étude sur le Latin des Chrétiens. IV. Latin chrétien et latin médiéval (SeL 143; Roma 21977) 11-28, 18; E. Vineis, “Le antiche versioni latine dei Vangeli,” Storia e preistoria dei Vangeli (DAFT n.s. 112; Genova 1988) 61-90, 80. 42 TE ba 7,1 (13,190); CY ep 70,2,2 (507,48).



THE ADVERSUS IUDAEOS, ATTRIBUTED TO TERTULLIAN 107

3.2. Lexicon a. Vocabulary expansion and contraction The translator has both expanded and contracted the vocabulary of the passage, apparently uninterested in making his Vorlage transparent via consistent lexical equivalents. So at Dn 9:27 one finds ἕως συντελείας καιροῦ συντέλεια43 translated by ad finem temporis consummatio; the two instances of συντέλεια, with nothing but καιροῦ to separate them, have been translated by finis and consummatio. One encounters συντέμνω | breuio at Dn 9:24 but the alternate translation concido two verses later. The opposite tendency, that of lexical contraction, can be seen in the use of uisio for both ὅρασις and ὀπτασία at Dn 9:21. 23-24. Extermino, one of the author’s favorite words for his commentary, translates both ἐξολεθρεύω and διαφθείρω at Dn 9:26. b. Noteworthy lemmata b.1. Hic At Dn 9:26 the demonstrative hic is used to translate the second instance of a repeated Greek article: τὰς ἑβδομάδας τὰς ἑξήκοντα | ebdomadas has sexaginta. The use of demonstratives, including hic, to translate the Greek article is a common VL technique.44 In the next verse the same demonstrative is used to translate a single Greek article: τὴν ἐρήμωσιν | hanc uastationem. b.2. Breuio The verb breuio has attestations in only two previous authors, the astronomical poet Manilius and the grammarian Quintilian, before its appearance here at Dn 9:24 as the translation for συντέμνω in reference to time cut short. Indeed, the verb was used just once by Manilius,45 and in the same way as the Adversus Iudaeos, that is, to refer to shortened time. Manilius’s only surviving work, on astronomy, is usually dated to approximately the second decade of the 1st c. AD.46 Quintilian, writing later

43 The text given is that of most of the manuscripts and all the versions. The reconstructed LXXθ’, containing a conjecture, is: ἕως συντελείας συντέλεια. 44 Rönsch, Itala, 420-422; E. Vineis, “Studio sulla lingua dell’Itala,” ItD 36 (1973) 287-372, 336-340. Cf: Dn 9:24 in PS-CY pa 13 (261,2) τὴν πόλιν τὴν ἁγίαν | ciuitatem illam sanctam. 45 Manil. 3,434 (50). 46 D. Paniagua Aguilar, El panorama literario técnico-científico en Roma (siglos I-II d.C.). Et docere et delectare (AcSal.Filol 312; Salamanca 2006) 319-320.

108

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

in the same century, uses the verb 4x in other contexts.47 Its next reappearance, over a century later, in this Christian work suggests that it may have remained in use in spoken Latin. This is all the more likely because of the word’s departure from literality; the translator avoids verbs of cutting in translating συντέμνω, choosing breuio instead. Just two verses later he does use a verb of cutting, at Dn 9:26, where he pairs both ἐκκόπτω and συντέμνω with concido. Since he has avoided an overly literal translation at verse 24 by pairing συντέμνω | breuio, presumably he has chosen a word that will be readily understood by his audience. From this chronological point on the word has greater attestation. b.3. Concido At Dn 9:26 the translator encounters πολέμου συντετμημένου, which he renders belli quod concidetur. Although, on the one hand, in concido he has chosen a more literal translation for συντέμνω than the breuio found two verses prior, on the other hand he opts for a future, finite verb in a relative clause to render συντετμημένου, for which *concisi and *breuiati are readily available. 3.3. Syntax a. Ut-clause rather than infinitive The translation is rather literal, for the most part following the Greek word for word. This, however, admits of exceptions, even when a Latin calque would have been possible. The use of infinitives of purpose following motion verbs began already in archaic Latin, but it had mostly died out by the time that we see Tertullian using it in biblical citations, not prose. The Greek infinitive lends itself to this construction.48 Yet for ἦλθον τοῦ ἀναγγεῖλαι at Dn 9:23 we encounter ueni ut adnuntiem in the Adversus Iudaeos, not ueni *adnuntiare. b. Change of voice In the next verse, Dn 9:24, there is another departure from literality that is by no means dictated by Latin grammar. Namely, the Latin text uses a whole series of six finite, passive verbs in the subjunctive where the source has one passive infinitive followed by five active ones (see table below). Even if the translator was unwilling to K. Münscher, “Brevio,” TLL II, 2170-2172. J. Adams – N. Vincent, “Infinitives with verbs of motion from Latin to Romance. Continuity or Change?” Early and Late Latin. Continuity or Change? (ed. J. Adams – N. Vincent) (Cambridge, England 2016) 265-293, 265-289. 47 48



THE ADVERSUS IUDAEOS, ATTRIBUTED TO TERTULLIAN 109

employ a Hellenism by writing infinites of purpose or result, he could have made recourse to gerunds. Indeed, he uses gerunds to translate the same construction in a decidedly unclassical way in the next verse: τοῦ ἀποκριθῆναι (?) καὶ τοῦ οἰκοδομῆσαι Ἰερουσαλήμ | in integrando et aedificando Hierusalem.49 In the series of subjunctive verbs he both changes and increases the parallelism of the Greek text: at Dn 9:24 he changes from all infinitives to all finite verbs, and he increases the parallelism by making them all passive, even the five Greek verbs in the active voice. However, by the next verse, Dn 9:25, he has apparently tired of the construction, translating the same Greek construction with two gerunds. Vorlage (Dn 9:24)

Adversus Iudaeos

τοῦ παλαιωθῆναι

inueteretur

τοῦ σφραγίσαι

signentur

τοῦ ἐξιλάσασθαι50

exorentur

τοῦ ἀγαγεῖν

inducatur

τοῦ σφραγίσαι

signetur

τοῦ χρῖσαι

unguatur

4. Conclusion The first half of the Adversus Iudaeos provides precious, early VL material quite different from that of the uncontested Tertullian. Although the complex issues concerning the work’s unity and authenticity need continued scholarly attention, this study makes a small contribution to that much larger project by contextualizing its text of Dn. The reader has seen that this text contains readings without extant Greek parallels, that it principally follows LXXθ’, and that in doing so it differs from Tertullian’s reliance on LXXo’. Those who advocate for the authenticity of the first half must reckon with the disparity between its Dn citations and those of the authentic works. 49 It is not certain that ἀποκριθῆναι was the verb in the Vorlage; cf. p. 99. For the Late Latin characteristics of the phrase, see Tränkle, commentary on Tertullian of Carthage, Adversus Iudaeos, 70-71. 50 Ἐξιλάσκομαι is usually deponent, though occasionally it is a true passive in the future singular, e.g. Nm 35:33 ἐξιλασθήσεται ἡ γῆ ἀπὸ τοῦ αἵματος. Its use in Dn 9:24, of middle voice in form, must be active in meaning; this is the verb’s standard use, and it fits within the series of the other five active verbs in this verse.

110

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

The Adversus Iudaeos’s agreements with LXXθ’ variants show a tendency to support Lucianic and Alexandrian Greek readings. Attention to the LXXθ’ manuscript tradition led to a proposed restoration of the Latin manuscripts at Dn 9:25, based on Greek 233 of the Greek Q group. From this material, lexicographers glean the hapax conuallatio, less surprising for its use alongside many other nouns in -io. Similarly, the use of breuio aids our understanding of the word’s development and currency over time. Though literal, the translation does reveal some significant lexical and syntactical departures from its Greek source, even when Latin calques were possible. This liberty makes the Latin citations all the more valuable; presumably the author chose words and structures intelligible to his audience, so a word like conuallatio should not be dismissed out of hand as translationese. The preceding comparison of the Adversus Iudaeos to the De pascha computus shows that, in line with the works’ usual dating, the former’s text type led to the latter’s. The more primitive text is more enigmatic, containing lectiones difficiliores. Even so, its similarity to liturgical texts in the plus concidentium (shared by the De pascha computus) for Dn 2:34, and LXXo’-derived in latitudinem (not shared) for Dn 9:25 suggest that these texts enjoyed use in the community of the Latin author rather than being ad hoc translations for his polemics.

Chapter 4 CYPRIAN AND PSEUDO-CYPRIAN

1. Text-critical analysis 1.1. Relation to other VL witnesses This table contains basic information on each witness referenced in the subsequent “table of agreements.” Four manuscripts rows appear first, followed by authors’ sigla in alphabetical order. It is a significantly longer list than the corresponding one in the chapter on Tertullian, a difference that reflects a greater volume of text available and its greater continuity with the later VL tradition. The presence of numerous liturgical witnesses, mostly Spanish and known to us from relatively late manuscripts, shows the lasting impact of textual elements dating back to Cyprian’s time. sigla

work

date

region

Sus-Dn-Bel

Liber Com(m)icus Toletanus

11th12th c.

Spain

Sus, Dn 2, 3:1-24. 4651, 91-100, 4, 7:1314. 26-27, 9:24-25, 10:1-11:2, 12:1-13

VL 175

5th c.

North Italy

Dn 2:18-33, 9:2510:11, 11:16-23. 35-39

VL 176

early 9th c.

Saint Gall, Switzerland

Sus 1-64, Dn 1:1-9, 3:36-60, 4:20-8:17, 8:21-9:2, 9:6-7. 15-16, 9:22-10:11. 16-21, 11:6-12:13, Bel 1-42

τ56. 70 (=VL 56, 70)

author

112

sigla

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

author

work

VL 177

date

region

Sus-Dn-Bel

5th c.

Italy

Sus 2-10, Dn 1:15-2:9, 3:15-50, 8:5-9:10, 10:3-11:6. 20-21. 23-25. 26-28. 31. 33. 35. 41

AM Hel

Ambrose of Milan

De Helia et ieiunio ca. 389 North Italy

Dn *3:50, 9:23

AN s Et 8

anonymous

sermon found and edited by Raymond Étaix

Middle Southern Ages? Italy?

Dn 7:2. 9-10

ANT-M

Mozarabic Antiphonary

10th c.

Spain

Dn 2:19. *34, 3:18. 27. 41. 45. 49-58. 63. 77-78. 82. 84. 86-89, 6:22, 7:9-10. 13-14, 9:4. 17. 20, 10:13, 12:3

ANT-S

Sinai Antiphonary

10th c.

North Africa

Dn 3:26. 57, 7:9-10. 27

AU ci

Augustine of Hippo

De civitate Dei

412426

North Africa

3:57, 7:13-28, 12:23. 13

AU ep 199

Epistula 199

418420

*9:26

AU Fau

Contra Faustum

400402

*9:26

AU leg

Contra adversarium legis et prophetarum

420

7:13-14

AU Ps 21 en 2

407 Enarrationes in Psalmum 21, enarratio 2

*6:27



Cyprian and Pseudo-Cyprian 113

sigla

author

AU tri 2 PS-AU alt

PseudoAugustine

Brev. Goth.2

Gothic Breviary

CHRO Mt

Chromatius of Aquileia

CHRY lap

John Chrysostom

work

date

De Trinitate liber 2

411

Altercatio Ecclesiae et Synagogae

438late 5th c.

region

Sus-Dn-Bel 7:9-10. 13-14

North Africa?1

7:13-14, 12:4

Middle Spain Ages

7:10

Tractatus in Matthaeum

397408

North Italy

2:22, 7:9-10, 10:2

De reparatione lapsi

late 4thearly 5th c.?

North Africa?3

4:24, 7:9-10. 13-15

[CHRY] PseudoI,859 Chrysostom

Homilia de tribus pueris (of Latin origin)

5th c.

?

Dn 3:1. 3. 25-26. 47. 49-50. 91-93. 95

CY ep 6

Epistula 6

250

North Africa

3:16-18

CY ep 58

Epistula 58

253

3:16-18, Bel 5 (Vg 14:4)

CY Fo

Ad Fortunatum

252253

Dn 3:16-18, Bel 5 (Vg 14:4)

CY op

De opere et eleemosynis

253256

Dn 4:24 (LXXo’ 4:27)

CY or

De dominica oratione

250

1:1-2, 3:51

1 2 3

Cyprian of Carthage

See p. 51, n. 8. Only cited for interesting readings not in ANT-M or ORA Vis; cited as VL 419 for Pss and canticles. T. N. Hall – M. Norris, “The Chrysostom texts in Bodley 516,” JThS n.s. 62/1 (2011) 161-175, 165-166.

114

sigla

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

author

work

date

region

CY lap

De lapsis

251

3:25, 9:4-7

CY te

Ad Quirinum (Testimoniorum libri 3)

248250

Sus 1-3, Dn 2:31-35, 3:16-18. 37-42, 6:2327, 7:13-14, 12:4

Sus-Dn-Bel

PS-CY Nov

PseudoCyprian

Ad Novatianum

253257?

North Africa?

7:9-10

PS-CY pa

PseudoCyprian

De pascha computus

243

North Africa

9:24-27

DRA lau

Dracontius

De laudibus Dei libri 3

484486

North Africa

Dn *3:50,

EVA-G

Evagrius Gallicus

Altercatio legis inter Simonem Iudaeum et Theophilum Christianum

ca. 430 Gaul

7:13-14

FIR err

Iulius Firmicus Maternus Siculus

De errore profanarum religionum

343350

South Italy

2:31-35, 7:13-14

PS-FIR con

PseudoFirmicus

Consultationes Zacchei christiani et Apollonii philosophi

408410

Gaul?

7:13, 11:36-37

GAU

Gaudentius of Brescia

Tractatus

late 4th - early 5th c.

North Italy

4:24

GR-I tr

Gregory of Illiberis

Tractatus Origenis late 4th c.

Spain

Dn 3:1. 17-18, *3:50, 3:91-92, 7:9

HI chr

Jerome of Stridon

Chronicon omnimodae historiae

Asia Minor

9:25-27

379380



Cyprian and Pseudo-Cyprian 115

sigla

author

work

date

region

Sus-Dn-Bel

HI Mi

Commentariorum in Michaeam prophetam libri 2

393

Palestine

Dn *3:50

HI Ps h 55

In Psalmos homilia 55

ca. 401 Palestine

3:16-18

HIL Ps

Hilary of Poitiers

Tractatus super Psalmos

ca. 365 Gaul

2:44, 7:9-10. 13-14

HILn curs

Quintus Iulius Hilarianus

De cursu temporum

397

North Africa

9:22-26

IR

Irenaeus of Lyons

Adversus haereses

3rd c.?; late 4th c.?

Gaul?

Sus 20. 52-53. 56, Dn 2:34, 2:41-45, 3:91-92, 7:20-25. 27, 8:11-12. 23-25, 9:27, 12:3-4. 9-10. 13, Bel 5

LAC epit

L. Caecilius Firmianus Lactantius

Epitome divinarum institutionum

314321

Asia Minor

7:13-14

Divinarum institutionum

304311

7:13-14

De non parcendo in Deum delinquentibus

ca. 359 South Italy (but written in exile)

7:1-27

Middle Ages

*3:50, passim

ca. 365 North Africa

4:24

LAC in LUC par

Lucifer of Cagliari

M-M

Mozarabic Missal

OPT Par

Optatus of Milevis

Contra Donatistas (to Parmenian)

116

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

sigla

author

work

date

region

Sus-Dn-Bel

ORA Vis

Orationes

Orationale Visigothicum

before 711

Spain

*2:34

PAC pae

Pacian of Barcelona

Sermo de paenitentibus

before 392

Spain

3:25, 9:5

RES-R

Roman Responsory

RUF Bas

Rufinus of Aquileia

Middle South Italy Ages

Sus 42-43, 3:17. 26. *3:50-51, 3:55-56. 78, 7:14, 12:1

Homiliae S. Basilii 398399

Italy

7:9-10

RUF Eus

Eusebii Historia Ecclesiastica

402403

Italy

7:9-10. 13-14

RUF Rm

Origenis Commen- 405tarius in Epistulam 406 ad Romanos

Italy

Sus 56, 3:86, 7:9-10, 9:5-7

RUF sy

Expositio symboli

S-Mo

Mozarabic Sacramentary

TE Marc

Tertullian of Carthage

[TE] Jud 1-8

[TE] Jud 9-14

400402

7:13-14, 12:2

8th-11th c.

Spain

*2:34

Adversus Marcionem

207211

North Africa

7:13-14

PseudoTertullian?

Adversus Iudaeos, 1-8

ca. 197 North Africa

*2:34, 9:1. 21-27

Pseudo-Tertullian?

Adversus Iudaeos, 9-14

3rd c.?

7:13-14

North Africa



Cyprian and Pseudo-Cyprian 117

sigla

author

work

date

region

Sus-Dn-Bel

Vg4

Jerome of Stridon

Vulgate Dn-Sus-Bel

early 390s

Palestine

Dn-Sus-Bel

VICn Apc

Victorinus of Poetovium

Commentarius in Apocalypsin

before 304

Balkans

2:38-40, 7:18, *9:2627

PS-VIG tri 3

PseudoVigilius of Thapsus

De trinitate, liber 3

late 4th - early 5th c.

Spain

7:13-14

PS-VIG Var

Pseudo-Vigilius of Thapsus

Contra Varimadum Arianum

445480

North Africa

Sus 42-43, 3:38-40. 91-92, 7:9. 13

The following table illustrates the continuation of Cyprian’s readings within the VL tradition. The Pseudo-Cyprianic ones, also listed, are marked as such.

vs 2:34 LXXθ’

4 5

Vorlage

(Ps.-) Cyprian

agreements

witnesses

ἐθεώρεις, ἕως οὗ ἀπεσχίσθη λίθος ἐξ ὄρους ἄνευ χειρῶν καὶ ἐπάταξε τὴν εἰκόνα ἐπὶ τοὺς πόδας τοὺς σιδηροῦς καὶ ὀστρακίνους καὶ ἐλέπτυνεν (+ αυτους many witnesses)

× quoadusque abscisus est lapis (de monte) sine manibus (concidentium) et percussit imaginem (super) pedes ferreos et fictiles et comminuit eos

×5 quoadusque abscisus est lapis

IR 5,26,1 (328,28)

sine manibus

et percussit imaginem (in) pedes ferreos et fictiles et comminuit eos

The Vg is only cited when considered pertinent. This minus is confirmed by the Armenian version; the Greek is lost here.

118

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

vs 2:34 LXX

Vorlage

(Ps.-) Cyprian

agreements

witnesses

(ἄνευ χειρῶν) ×

concidentium

concidentium

*[TE] Jud 3,8 (8,9); FIR err 20,4 (124,33)

precidentium

*ANT-M 70v (91); *S-Mo 13 (14,2)

precidentis

*ORA Vis 301 (100,11)

3:18 LXXθ’

τῇ εἰκόνι, ᾗ ἔστησας, οὐ προσκυνοῦμεν

imaginem… quam constituisti non adoramus

imaginem… quam constituisti non adoramus

HI Ps h 55 (324,63)

3:25 LXXo’

στὰς δὲ Αζαρίας προσηύξατο οὕτως καὶ ἀνοίξας τὸ στόμα αὐτοῦ × ἐξωμολογεῖτο τῷ κυρίῳ ἅμα τοῖς συνεταίροις αὐτοῦ

Stans, inquit, Azarias precatus est × et aperuit os suum, et exomologesin faciebat Deo simul cum sodalibus suis

Stans, inquit, Azarias precatus est × et aperuit os suum, et exomologesin faciebat Deo simul cum sodalibus suis

PAC pae 10,4 (30,287)

3:39 LXXθ’

ἀλλʼ ἐν ψυχῇ συντετριμμένῃ καὶ πνεύματι ταπεινώσεως

sed in anima × spiritu humilitatis

sed in anima × spiritu humilitatis

VL 177; PSVIG Var 1,51 (62)

et

et



Cyprian and Pseudo-Cyprian 119

vs *3:50 LXX

3:51 LXX

4:24 LXXθ’

6:26 LXXθ’

Vorlage

(Ps.-) Cyprian

agreements

witnesses

πνεῦμα δρόσου

spiritus roris

spiritus roris

τ56.70; *HI Mi 2 (489,328); *GR-I tr 18 (193,2); [CHRY] I,859 (119,43); *DRA lau 3,178 (24); RES-R 3903 (352); ANT-M 297v (235); M-M (533C)

(~) roris spiritus

*AM Hel 19 (422,16); *GR-I tr 18 (197,7)

ὕμνουν

hymnum canebant

hymnum canebant

ANT-M 200r (332); *RES-R (Var) 4946 (482)

τὰς ἁμαρτίας σου ἐν ἐλεημοσύναις λύτρωσαι καὶ τὰς ἀδικίας (+ σου codd) ἐν οἰκτιρμοῖς πενήτων

peccata tua eleemosynis redime et iniustitias tuas miserationibus pauperum

peccata tua eleemosynis redime et iniustitias tuas in miserationibus pauperum

OPT Par 3,24 (36,179)

(placeat tibi, × iniquitates) tuas elemosinis redime et (peccata) tua miserationibus pauperum

GAU 13,30 (122,231)

uiuus… dominatio

VL 176

ζῶν… ἡ κυριεία

uiuus… dominatio

120

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

Vorlage

(Ps.-) Cyprian

agreements

witnesses

6:27 LXXθ’

ἐκ χειρός

de lacu

de lacu

*AU Ps 21 en 2,6 (54,5); Vg codd

7:9 LXXθ’

καὶ παλαιὸς ἡμερῶν ἐκάθητο καὶ τὸ ἔνδυμα αὐτοῦ

et uetustus dierum sedebat (super eum) et uestitus eius (Ps.)

et uetustus dierum sedebat (×) et uestitus eius

VL 176

7:9 LXX

παλαιὸς ἡμερῶν

uetustus dierum (Ps.)

uetustus dierum

VL 176; LUC par 30 (253,23); RUF Eus 1,2,24 (27,9); RUF Rm 9,41 (772,19); AU tri 2,33 (124,11); CHRY lap 12 (290,72)

7:9 LXXθ’

τὸ ἔνδυμα

uestitus (Ps.)

uestitus

VL 176; LUC par 30 (253,23); ANT-S 214v,5 (118)

7:9 LXXθ’

χιὼν λευκόν (om. λευκόν Hippol.A)

nix × (Ps.)

nix ×

ANT-S 214v,5 (118)

7:9 LXXθ’

(πῦρ) φλέγον

(ignis) ardens (Ps.)

(ignis) ardens

VL 176; LUC par 30 (253,23); HIL Ps 67,18 (274,4); RUF Bas 7 (133,191); AN s Et 8,2 (327,36)

vs



Cyprian and Pseudo-Cyprian 121

vs 7:10 LXXθ’

7:10 LXXθ’

7:10 LXX

Vorlage

(Ps.-) Cyprian

agreements

witnesses

χίλιαι χιλιάδες ἐλειτούργουν αὐτῷ

milia milium seruiebant ei (Ps.)

milia milium seruiebant ei

LUC par 30 (253,26); HIL Ps 67,18 (274,5)

milia miliorum seruiebant ei

VL 176

seruiebant… adsistebant

CHRO Mt 54A,10 (634,265); Brev. Goth. 655A

deseruiebant… adsistebant

AU tri 2,33 (124,14)

serbiunt… ×

ANT-S 214v,7 (118)

in iudicium sedit

VL 176; LUC par 30 (253,26)

ἐλειτούργουν… παρειστήκεισαν

κριτήριον ἐκάθισε

seruiebant… adsistebant (Ps.)

ad iudicium sedit

122

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

vs 7:13 LXX

7:13 Iust.

Vorlage

(Ps.-) Cyprian

agreements

witnesses

ἐθεώρουν ἐν ὁράματι

uidebam in uisu

uidebam in uisu

LAC in 4,12,12 (312,9); LAC epit 42,4 (63,9); FIR err 24,6 (134); RUF sy 32 (167,10); PS-AU alt (41,425); PSVIG tri 3,93 (54,836); AU ci 18,34,6 (628); AU leg 2,12 (100,413); PS-VIG Var 1,47 (58)

uidebam in (uisum)

VL 176; LUC par 30 (253,33)

filius hominis ueniens × uenit usque ad ueterem dierum

TE Marc 3,7,4 (88,25); FIR err 24,6 (134); EVA-G 6 (291,224); PS-AU alt (41,425)

υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου ἐρχόμενος· καὶ ἦλθεν ἕως τοῦ παλαιοῦ τῶν ἡμερῶν

filius hominis ueniens × uenit usque ad ueterem dierum



Cyprian and Pseudo-Cyprian 123

vs 7:13 Iust.

7:13 LXXθ’

Vorlage

(Ps.-) Cyprian

agreements

witnesses

ἐρχόμενος· καὶ ἦλθεν

ueniens × uenit

ueniens × uenit

TE Marc 3,7,4 (88,25); [TE] Jud 14,4 (39,2); LUC par 30 (253,33); EVA-G 6 (291,224); FIR err 24,6 (134); PS-AU alt (41,425)

τοῦ παλαιοῦ τῶν ἡμερῶν

ueterem dierum

ueterem dierum

TE Marc 3,7,4 (88,25); [TE] Jud 14,4 (39,2); FIR err 24,6 (134); *IR 4,20,11 (662,290); AU tri 2,33 (124,17); PSVIG tri 3,93 (54,836); PS-FIR con 2,6 (46,106); EVA-G 6 (291,224); PS-AU alt (41,425)

124

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

Vorlage

(Ps.-) Cyprian

agreements

witnesses

ἡμάρτομεν, ἠσεβήσαμεν, ἠδικήσαμεν καὶ ἀπέστημεν καὶ παρήλθομεν τὰς ἐντολάς σου καὶ τὰ κρίματά σου

peccauimus, facinus admisimus, (impii fuimus,) transgressi sumus (ac deseruimus) praecepta (tua) et iudicia tua

peccauimus, facinus admisimus, (inpie gessimus,)6 transgressi sumus

PAC pae 10,4 (30,285)

καὶ

autem

autem

VL 176; VL 177; Vg

9:24 Greek 230, 410

προφητείαν

prophetia (Ps.)

prophetia

*[TE] Jud 8,5 (16,2); HILn curs (166,18); Vg codd

9:24 Greek 230, 410

προφητείαν

prophetia (Ps.)

prophetia

*[TE] Jud 8,5 (16,2); HILn curs (166,18); Vg codd

ia

VL 176

vs 9:5 Cf. LXXo’

9:7 LXX

praecepta iudicia tua

et

9:24 LXXθ’

τοῦ χρῖσαι (ἅγιον ἁγίων)

ungueatur (Ps.)

ungueatur

HILn curs 11 (201,14) Var; Vg codd

9:25 LXXθ’

καὶ τεῖχος, καὶ ἐκκενωθήσονται οἱ καιροί

et murus, et exinanientur tempora (Ps.)

et murus, exinanienr tempora

VL 175

< … exina>nientur tem

VL 176

6 Could inpie gessimus be the result of interference from Bar 2:12, which begins with ἡμάρτομεν, ἠσεβήσαμεν, ἠδικήσαμεν? Latin texts that translate the second verb as impie gessimus include VL 189; M-Ben Vat 3v,10a (42); PS-AU spe 23 (401,14). Brev. Goth 410A has impie gessimus as the last of three terms, perhaps matching Greek 407.



Cyprian and Pseudo-Cyprian 125

vs

Vorlage

(Ps.-) Cyprian

agreements

witnesses

9:26 LXX

χρῖσμα

unctio (Ps.)

unctio

[TE] Jud 8,6 (16,8); *HILn curs (169,11); *AU Fau 22,85 (689,1) and 12,44 (372,19); *AU ep 199,33 (272,21)

9:26 LXX

τὸ ἅγιον

sanctum (neuter) (Ps.)

sanctum (neuter)

*HILn curs (169,11)

ἐν κατακλυσμῷ

in cataclysmo (Ps.)

in cataclysmo

VL 175; [TE] Jud 8,6 (16,8); HI chr (161,16)

cataclymo

VL 176

execratio uastationis

[TE] Jud 8,6 (16,11)

exsecratio

*VICn Apc 13,4 (108,14)

9:26 LXXθ’

9:27 LXX

βδέλυγμα τῶν ἐρημώσεων

execratio uastationum (Ps.)

9:27 LXX

σπονδή

libatio (Ps.)

libatio

IR 5,25,4 (322,99); [TE] Jud 8,6 (16,11)

9:27 LXX

ἱερόν

sanctum (Ps.)

(in) sancto

[TE] Jud 8,6 (16,11)

126

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

vs 12:4 LXXθ’

Vorlage

(Ps.-) Cyprian

agreements

witnesses

ἔμφραξον τοὺς λόγους καὶ σφράγισον τὸ βιβλίον ἕως καιροῦ συντελείας, ἕως διδαχθῶσι πολλοὶ καὶ πληθυνθῇ ἡ γνῶσις

muni sermones et signa librum usque ad tempus consummationis, quoad discant multi et inpleatur agnitio

muni sermones et signa librum usque ad tempus consummationis, quoadusque discant multi et adimpleatur agnitio

IR 4,26,1 (712,10)

muni sermones, × signa librum usque ad tempus consummationis, (quo adducantur) multi et impleatur agnitio

PS-AU alt (47,586)

(obstruæ) sermones et signa librum usquæ ad tempus consummationis quoad (doceantur) multi et (multiplicetur scientia)

VL 176

Cyprian writes just decades after his illustrious fellow Carthaginian Tertullian, yet their agreement in Dn is modest. It is manifest especially in the following passage from 7:13, which is close to Justin Martyr’s Greek: filius hominis ueniens, uenit



Cyprian and Pseudo-Cyprian 127

usque ad ueterem dierum.7 As for the Adversus Iudaeos attributed to Tertullian, one finds agreements both from the first half of the work ([TE] Jud 1-8), usually dated to 197, and the second half ([TE] Jud 9-14), more often considered inauthentic and dependent on the Adversus Marcionem.8 In any case, it is the only non-liturgical source to agree with Cyprian’s plus of concidentium in Dn 2:34. At Dn 9:27, it is close to Pseudo-Cyprian’s super illum sanctum execratio uastationum… hanc uastationem, being the only text to share βδέλυγμα | execratio and ἐρήμωσις | uastatio, and the closest to τὸ ἱερόν | illum sanctum with its (in) sancto. All of these examples come from the first part of the Adversus Iudaeos, chapters 1-8, whose quotations are sometimes distinguished from those of the second part, chapters 9-14.9 Although these agreements are enough to posit either a North African influence or origin for Dn in Adversus Iudaeos, the differences are even more numerous than the agreements; the work does not share Cyprian’s text type. Since the Cyprianic material is the first clear written attestation of a Latin Dn, one must wonder about the extent of its influence upon later witnesses and its preservation in them. In other words, is there continuity from these texts to the witnesses of subsequent centuries? The answer is a qualified “yes”: although this material is mostly isolated as a textual type, there are brief portions of it attested in other VL material and even the Vg. Firmicus Maternus reproduces Cyprian’s text not because his scriptures derive from that text type, but because he uses Cyprian’s Testimonia directly. The same goes for the Altercatio legis inter Simonem Iudaeum et Theophilum Christianum of Evagrius of Gaul and Pseudo-Augustine’s Altercatio Ecclesiae et Synagogae. Pacian of Barcelona’s Sermo de paenitentibus at first glance does not seem to belong to the group just listed; Angel Anglada Anfruns’s 2012 critical edition signals no dependence of Dn 3:25 and 9:5 on Cyprian.10 Yet these verses occurring in very close proximity surely do depend on his De lapsis. Pacian elsewhere shows his high esteem for the work in his Contra tractatus Novatianorum, where he urges, “Lege totam De lapsis epistolam.”11 This comes in a context related to Daniel, where Pacian twice quotes Ez 14,12 which in turn names Noah, Job, and Daniel. Indeed, it would be remarkable for the Sermo de paenitentibus to cite two verses that rely heavily on LXXo’, in which the verses are cited almost verbatim as they appeared in Cyprian’s work but differently from other VL witnesses, by Pacian selecting them from his biblical manuscript. Rather, we must attribute the agreement to Pacian’s reliance on the De lapsis. Indeed, Anglada Anfruns’s one-time doctoral student Pedro Brosa Rocabert identified Pacian’s dependence on Cyprian’s citations of Dn 3:25 and 9:5, TE Marc 3,7,4 (88,25). For Justin Martyr’s text of this passage see p. 66. See the section on the Adversus Iudaeos’s unity and authenticity, p. 93. 9 See the treatment of this issue beginning at p. 93. 10 Pacian of Barcelona, Opera quae extant (ed. A. Anglada Anfruns) (CC 69B; Turnhout 2012) 30. 11 PAC Nov 24,2 (147,736). 12 PAC Nov 22,3 (144,692) and 24,2 (147,731). 7 8

128

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

in his dissertation.13 The full citation of Dn 3:25 (excluding inquit) ought to be in italics but is not so in the 2012 edition: “Stans inquit Azarias precatus est et aperuit os suum et exomologesin faciebat Deo simul cum sodalibus suis.” More interesting for this study are the few citations that suggest the propagation of Cyprian’s text type through the transmission of Latin Sus-Dn-Bel as such. At least one verse (Dn 12:4) of Irenaeus of Lyons’s Adversus haereses in Latin fits this category, and perhaps the agreement with Optatus of Milevis at Dn 4:24. The Adversus haereses is the most remarkable of these, for its match with Cyprian presumes the currency of this text type outside of Africa. Indeed, translated into Latin as early as the 3rd c., this work is known to frequently agree with Cyprian’s biblical texts. The most important agreement is Dn 12:4, where they are the only witnesses of the etymologically proper but unusual pairing ἐμφράσσω | munio, both words being related to the noun “wall”. Cyprian reads: muni (ἔμφραξον) sermones et signa librum usque ad tempus consummationis, quoad discant multi et inpleatur agnitio. Takamitsu Muraoka gives the first meaning “to deny passage” for ἐμφράσσω, citing this verse and others, though one may wish rather to use his second meaning here, “to block up, close up (that which is open).”14 Hence Daniel is told to close up the words (of the book) and to seal the book. The VL elsewhere tends to render the Greek along the lines of “to block up,” as in obstruo five verses later, right in Irenaeus’s Dn 12:9.15 Here the words of the book are again referred to, now already closed up and sealed. Latin Irenaeus is extant and reads sermones obstructi sunt | ἐμπεφραγμένοι οἱ λόγοι (codd). The translations obturo and oppilo are also among the Greek verb’s more frequent renderings.16 Despite obstruo in Irenaeus’s Dn 12:9, for verse 4 we find munio in both Cyprian and Irenaeus, another legitimate translation, which is first of all military vocabulary and can mean “to fortify, provide with a protective wall/covering, to safeguard.”17 Considering this agreement alongside the others in Dn 12:4 (to be treated next), the use of Cyprian’s vocabulary cannot be mere coincidence. In Dn 12:4, the Adversus haereses’s only differences are the addition of ad- to inpleatur and an expansion from Cyprian’s quoad to quoadusque. This work never uses *quoad but rather the longer form; it likewise uses adimpleo more frequently than impleo. So these adjustments may have been the initiative of the work’s translator. The Adversus haereses shares with Cyprian the active discant where LXXθ’ reads διδαχθῶσι. Irenaeus’s Latin text shares another important agreement with Cyprian 13 Novatianea. Estudio de las citas bíblicas en las fuentes latinas del novacianismo (Diss. Universidad de Barcelona; Barcelona 1986) 225, 229, 232-233. 14 “Ἐμφράσσω,” A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint, 230-231. 15 IR 1,19,1 (288,28). Note that his text agrees with Hippolytus and three Greek manuscript, 239, 420, and 584, in using only one of the two participles: ἐμπεφραγμένοι. Obstruo occurs elsewhere in VL Dn as well: Dn 6:23 (Vg 6:22) ob in VL 176; Dn 12:9 in VL 176. Outside of Dn, e.g. 1 Mcc 5:47 in the Vg. 16 E.g. obturo: Gn 26:15 in AP-V Jub 24,12 (29a); Judt 16:3 (16:5 Vg) in VL 148, 150, 151. Oppilo: Gn 26:15 in RUF Gn 13,1 (113,16); 1 Mcc 2:36 in the Vg. 17 “Munio,” Oxford Latin Dictionary 2, 1260.



Cyprian and Pseudo-Cyprian 129

in 2:34, a minus for ἐθεώρεις (LXXo’ καὶ ἑόρακας). Although, admittedly, the two witnesses have numerous disagreements for the verse, they still share much: quoadusque abscisus est lapis… sine manibus… et percussit imaginem… pedes ferreos et fictiles et comminuit eos.18 Although we lack the evidence to trace the text’s journey from Carthage to the anonymous translator of the Adversus haereses, these agreements cannot all be coincidental. That is to say, the translator owes a debt of mediated literary dependence to the Cyprianic text type in these verses, which explains the unexpected munio and the agreement on discant against the Greek. Still, only a single verse of the handful available, 12:4, agrees closely enough to be considered of the Cyprianic textual type without qualification. Optatus is the other Father who reproduces a verse nearly identical to Cyprian’s. At Dn 4:24, he shares enough material with Cyprian to assume dependence on a common text type. Optatus matches twelve consecutive words of Cyprian’s 4:24, except for the plus of in in place of an ablative of means. Besides Irenaeus and Optatus, one finds mere single words or short phrases in later witnesses agreeing with Cyprian. Some of these are surely mere coincidence. Taken all together, however, they provide modest evidence for the influence of a Cyprianic text on later revisions. For example, in Dn 3:39 there is no Greek witness for the omission of συντετριμμένῃ, yet VL 177 and Pseudo-Vigilius of Thapsus share Cyprian’s minus: sed in anima × et spiritu humilitatis. Likewise in Dn 7:10 Pseudo-Cyprian’s translation of κριτήριον ἐκάθισε as ad iudicium sedit is by no means obvious, for the Greek subject could be the Ancient of Days or the κριτήριον itself. Yet VL 176 has the similar in iudicium sedit, implying the Ancient of Days as subject. VL 176, close to Lucifer’s text when their extant portions overlap, also attests these Cyprianic equivalents: ζῶν | uiuus and ἡ κυριεία | dominatio at 6:26; in 7:9 καὶ παλαιὸς ἡμερῶν ἐκάθητο… καὶ τὸ ἔνδυμα αὐτοῦ | et uetustus dierum sedebat… et uestitus eius as well as φλέγον | ardens; and in 7:13 θεωρέω | uideo and ὅραμα | uisus. Although any one of these agreements could easily be coincidence, the sum of them is not likely so. For instance, VL 176 translates κυριεία otherwise in Bel 5 as potestas. The pairing of ζῶν | uiuus in VL 176, with Cyprian, is all the more remarkable since elsewhere in Dn (but not Bel) this manuscript has the more obvious uiuens.19 As for this manuscript’s ἔνδυμα | uestitus at Dn 7:9, shared with Lucifer and the Sinai Antiphonary, an important liturgical VL witness, the Latin cognate *indumentum comes to mind as an effortless alternative translation, as is in fact found in

18 Dn 2:34 LXXθ’: ἐθεώρεις, ἕως οὗ ἀπεσχίσθη (ἐτμήθη codd) λίθος ἐξ ὄρους ἄνευ χειρῶν καὶ ἐπάταξε τὴν εἰκόνα ἐπὶ τοὺς πόδας τοὺς σιδηροῦς καὶ ὀστρακίνους καὶ ἐλέπτυνεν (+ αυτους codd) εἰς τέλος. Dn 2:34 LXXo’: καὶ ἑόρακας ἕως ὅτου ἐτμήθη λίθος ἐξ ὄρους ἄνευ χειρῶν καὶ ἐπάταξε τὴν εἰκόνα ἐπὶ τοὺς πόδας τοὺς σιδηροῦς καὶ ὀστρακίνους καὶ κατηλόησεν αὐτά. 19 Dn 4:31, 12:7. VL 175 also pairs ζῶν | uiuens at Dn 2:30, whereas, on the other hand, VL 176 has ζῶν | uiuus in Bel 5. 6. 24.

130

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

several other witnesses.20 Likewise, φλέγον | ardens, also in VL 176 and Cyprian, is not as obvious as it may seem: for πῦρ φλέγον at Ps 103:4 Tertullian gives ignis flagrans, a translation to which the Greek consonants lend themselves,21 whereas VL 177 employs the flamboyant ignis ardens flammigerans at Jer 20:9 for πῦρ καιόμενον φλέγον.22 Lucifer’s citations, very similar to VL 176, overlap with the Cyprianic material in Dn 7, where they share some vocabulary and short phrases. These include most of the examples from Dn 7 just mentioned for VL 176, including κριτήριον ἐκάθισε | in iudicium sedit. Also important is Lucifer’s filius hominis ueniens uenit at 7:13, matching Tertullian and Pseudo-Cyprian against VL 176; its closest Greek equivalent is Justin Martyr’s υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου ἐρχόμενος καὶ ἦλθεν. Finally, at 7:10, Lucifer and Pseudo-Cyprian both attest the pairing χίλιαι χιλιάδες ἐλειτούργουν αὐτῷ | milia milium seruiebant ei. Let us consider just a few more witnesses which, though providing but the briefest agreements with Cyprianic material, are nevertheless worth taking into account. At Dn 2:34, Cyprian has the plus concidentium, unknown in the Greek tradition, with the phrase abscisus est lapis de monte sine manibus concidentium. Besides Pseudo-Firmicus’s early-5th-c. Consultationes, which copies from Cyprian’s works, this plus can be found in the Adversus Iudaeos attributed to Tertullian, and in liturgical transmission as precidentium. Likewise, liturgical texts are the only ones that read hymnum canebant for ὕμνουν at 3:51, and the Sinai Antiphonary shares the Cyprianic minus at the end of uestitus eius erat tamquam nix × at 7:9, in agreement with a manuscript of Hippolytus but against LXXθ’ τὸ ἔνδυμα αὐτοῦ ὡσεὶ χιὼν λευκόν. At Dn 9:24 Pseudo-Cyprian reads ut signetur uisio et prophetia et ut ungueatur sanctum sanctorum. The late-4th-c. African Hilarianus preserves Pseudo-Cyprian’s prophetia and his post-classical ungueatur for *unguatur. At 9:26 the they both pair χρῖσμα | unctio rather than *chrisma where Pseudo-Cyprian reads post LXII hebdomadas disperibit unctio. Again, some of these agreements with VL 176, VL 177, Lucifer, and liturgical texts are probably mere coincidence. Taken as a whole, however, they hint at the possibility of a Cyprianic text type as the basis for later, thoroughgoing revisions. Despite the clear differences in textual type between the Cyprianic material and the witnesses that provide us the most text (VL 175, 176, 177, and Lucifer), these pieces of evidence give some support, albeit modest, to the hypothesis of a Carthaginian origin for VL Sus-Dn-Bel. Had VL Sus-Dn-Bel originated outside of North Africa, 20 CHRY lap 12 (290,72); RUF Bas 7 (133,191); RUF Rm 9,41 (772,19); AU tri 2,33 (124,11). There are also other alternative translations such as uestis or the Vg’s uestimentum. 21 *TE Marc 3,9,7 (106,49). Mid-3rd-c. PS-CY reb 17,5 (577,727) has ignis ardens for this verse, which is also well attested with ignis urens. 22 This is a favorite verse of Ambrose, who cites it various ways, but always with flammigerans or flammans. In AM Lc 7,132 and AM off 3,102 it matches VL 177. See AM ep 43,15; AM Is 77; AM Ps 38,15,3 (195,17); AM Ps 118 serm 11; AM Ps 118,14,26 (315,25); AM Ps 118,18,19 (406,26). Nevertheless, the pairing πῦρ φλέγον | ignis ardens should not be considered an anomaly. This is the unanimous Latin translation at Ex 24:17, attested also by Ambrose. See AM Ps 43,28,1 (283,13); VL 102; AU tri 2,26 (115,60).



Cyprian and Pseudo-Cyprian 131

we might expect to find some evidence for it; in lack of it, we must trace the evidence that we do have. This, in fact, leads back to North Africa. 1.2. Alignment with Greek text types The fact that Cyprian’s texts often agree with LXXo’ against LXXθ’ attracted Burkitt’s attention in his late-19th-c. work.23 Burkitt correctly notes that there are passages where one Greek source or the other has dominated, whereas elsewhere the two are thoroughly mixed. He goes on to claim that the author of the contemporary Pseudo-Cyprianic De pascha computus possessed, in addition to Cyprian’s Dn, a pure LXXθ’ version of Dn. The latter work, however, has a reading (Dn 9:24) that conflates the two Greek versions; therefore, it cannot be considered “pure” in contradistinction to Cyprian’s Dn.24 We already saw that with Tertullian Burkitt overlooks LXXθ’ material, which leads him to posit a purer LXXo’ text than permitted by the evidence. Granted, this is much easier to determine today than at the time of Burkitt’s pioneering research. Furthermore, Burkitt seems to assume that Tertullian was indeed citing from an already-existent Latin Bible. All these factors must lead one, given today’s more-advanced state of research, to reject Burkitt’s hypothesis that Cyprian’s manuscript “was a copy of the old Latin version from the LXX, half-corrected to the new Latin version from Theodotion.”25 His basis for positing the “new Latin version from Theodotion” is precisely De pascha computus, which, as stated above, was not the pure LXXθ’ text that he imagined. Besides sharing this characteristic of depending on mixed Greek sources, the authentic and inauthentic citations treated here share other characteristics as well: agreement with some of the same Septuagintal witnesses, an abundance of nouns in -io, the change of voice of verbs, the occasional translation of the Greek imperfect by the Latin perfect, and the addition of sum for some Greek noun sentences. These phenomena will be seen in their proper contexts in the following sections; they are mentioned here only to justify the treatment of this material together. To them must be added the fact of the proximity of the texts’ origins in time and space, that is, mid-3rd-c. Carthage. Let us examine the material anew, relying on Greek and Latin editions published long after Burkitt’s work. Here follow examples of Cyprian’s biblical citations to illustrate the three basic types of relationships of the Latin texts to LXXo’ and LXXθ’. Burkitt, Old Latin, 25-29. PS-CY pa 13 (261,2) et deleantur iniustitiae et expientur iniustitiae, from LXXo’ καὶ ἀπαλεῖψαι τὰς ἀδικίας conflated with LXXθ’ καὶ τοῦ ἐξιλάσασθαι ἀδικίας. Note that merger likely occurred prior to translation into Latin, for it is well attested in Greek. In fact, the insertion of the LXXo’ reading into the LXXθ’ manuscripts is so widespread that the LXXθ’ apparatus simply indicates the plus’s witnesses as rel(iqui). 25 Burkitt, Old Latin, 28. Neither is his manuscript a translation of Proto-Theodotion’s revision on its way to becoming LXXθ’, pace Bodenmann; see p. 95, n. 18. 23 24

132

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

A few isolated verses based on LXXo’, such as these two: Dn 3:25 LXXo’

with CY CY lap

στὰς δὲ26 Αζαρίας προσηύξατο οὕτως καὶ ἀνοίξας τὸ στόμα αὐτοῦ ἐξωμολογεῖτο τῷ κυρίῳ ἅμα τοῖς συνεταίροις αὐτοῦ ἐν μέσῳ τῷ πυρὶ (ὑποκαιομένης τῆς καμίνου)

with CY

LXX

θ’

stans, inquit, Azarias καὶ συστὰς Αζαρίας precatus est et προσηύξατο οὕτως καὶ aperuit os suum, et ἀνοίξας τὸ στόμα αὐτοῦ exomologesin faciebat Deo simul cum sodalibus suis in medio ignis (Var igni) ἐν μέσῳ τοῦ πυρὸς (εἷπεν)

Bel 5 (Vg 14:4) LXXo’

with CY CY Fo

οὐδένα σέβομαι ἐγὼ εἰ μὴ κύριον τὸν θεὸν τὸν κτίσαντα τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν.

26

inquit.

nihil colo ego nisi Dominum Deum meum qui condidit caelum et terram.

with CY

LXX

θ’

οὐ σέβομαι εἴδωλα χειροποίητα, ἀλλὰ τὸν ζῶντα θεὸν τὸν κτίσαντα τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν καὶ ἔχοντα πάσης σαρκὸς κυριείαν.

If Cyprian’s text had a corresponding Latin word in this position he may have suppressed it in favor of



Cyprian and Pseudo-Cyprian 133

Many verses based on LXXθ’, for instance Dn 4:24: θ’

LXXo’

CY op

with CY

αὐτοῦ δεήθητι περὶ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν καὶ πάσας τὰς ἀδικίας σου ἐν ἐλεημοσύναις λύτρωσαι, ἵνα ἐπιείκεια δοθῇ σοι καὶ πολυήμερος γένησαι ἐπὶ τοῦ θρόνου τῆς βασιλείας σου, καὶ μὴ καταφθαρῇς.

propterea, rex, consilium meum placeat tibi, et peccata tua eleemosynis redime et iniustitias tuas miserationibus pauperum, et erit Deus patiens peccatis tuis.

διὰ τοῦτο, βασιλεῦ, ἡ βουλή μου ἀρεσάτω σοι, καὶ τὰς ἁμαρτίας σου ἐν ἐλεημοσύναις λύτρωσαι καὶ τὰς ἀδικίας (+ σου codd) ἐν οἰκτιρμοῖς πενήτων· ἴσως ἔσται μακρόθυμος τοῖς παραπτώμασί σου ὁ θεός.

LXX

Mixed LXXo’/LXXθ’ verses, such as Dn 2:35: LXXo’

with CY

τότε λεπτὰ ἐγένετο ἅμα ὁ σίδηρος καὶ τὸ ὄστρακον καὶ ὁ χαλκὸς καὶ ὁ ἄργυρος καὶ ὁ χρυσὸς καὶ ἐγένετο ὡσεὶ λεπτότερον ἀχύρου ἐν ἅλωνι, καὶ ἐρρίπισεν αὐτὰ ὁ ἄνεμος ὥστε μηδὲν καταλειφθῆναι ἐν αὐτοῖς· καὶ ὁ λίθος ὁ πατάξας τὴν εἰκόνα ἐγένετο ὄρος μέγα καὶ ἐπάταξε πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν.

θ’

CY te

with CY

et factum est simul ferrum et testa et aeramentum et argentum et aurum, facta sunt minuta quasi palea aut puluis in area aestate, et uentilauit illa uentus, ita ut nihil remanserit in illis, et lapis qui percussit imaginem factus est mons magnus et inpleuit totam terram.

τότε ἐλεπτύνθησαν εἰς ἅπαξ τὸ ὄστρακον, ὁ σίδηρος, ὁ χαλκός, ὁ ἄργυρος, ὁ χρυσὸς καὶ ἐγένετο ὡσεὶ κονιορτὸς ἀπὸ ἅλωνος θερινῆς· καὶ ἐξῆρε τὸ πλῆθος τοῦ πνεύματος, καὶ τόπος οὐχ εὐρέθη αὐτοῖς· καὶ ὁ λίθος ὁ πατάξας τὴν εἰκόνα ἐγενήθη ὄρος μέγα καὶ ἐπλήρωσε πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν.

LXX

Var

~ὁ σίδ., τὸ ὄστρ. A′’ O 88

134

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

Many verses are difficult to fit into these groups since there is often LXXo’ material within the Greek LXXθ’ manuscript tradition, and since some Latin verses bear a single element from one of the Greek versions. Indeed, the two verses representing a “pure” LXXo’ text in Latin lack the context of extant surrounding verses; were they extant, they may well reveal a significant amount of LXXθ’ material, rendering the sections mixed. When the Greek versions differ the scholar, taking into account their apparatuses, can often identify Cyprian’s probable Vorlage. Explaining how the Latin text came to have its complex relationship to the Greek texts is another, more challenging question. In the absence of evidence for the development of the Latin text, we must content ourselves with acknowledging many possibilities that would account for this outcome. The two extremes are: 1) all the textual mixing took place already in the transmission of the Greek, with no further mixing after translation into Latin and 2) all the textual mixing took place in the translation to and transmission of the Latin. The latter proposition is almost surely false, given the many agreements with LXXo’ by Cyprian and Tertullian, that are also supported by LXXo’ material in otherwise LXXθ’ witnesses. It is not so easy to rule out the former proposition, though it is indeed an extreme one insofar as it presumes that a well-attested phenomenon in the Greek transmission did not occur in the VL tradition, known for constant revision on Greek texts. So the mixing likely began in Greek transmission and entered the Latin text by the mere act of translation. We lack the evidence to determine whether, and to what extent, it was compounded by the intervention of Latin copyists. 1.3. Agreements with Greek witnesses Let us consider in greater detail the Cyprianic material’s salient agreements with Greek witnesses, which are presented in a chart at the end of this subsection. Agreements have been selected for variants that have a low number of direct witnesses, allowing for a greater probability of correlation with the Cyprianic text. Whereas all of the direct witnesses have been listed, the indirect ones have been limited to Justin Martyr and Hippolytus’s various manuscripts, always in parentheses to avoid misleading the reader into thinking that all secondary witnesses have been included. The samples have also been pared down to those which manifest a pattern of agreement rather than mere isolated agreements. The 6th-c. Greek uncial manuscript Q (Codex Marchalianus), along with associated minuscules Greek 230 and Greek 541 stand out above all, especially in Sus and Bel. Greek 26 of the B group has a few close agreements, as well as the codex mixtus 588. The alignment of Cyprianic material with the extant Greek witnesses is by no means straightforward; it is an inexact science. This is due in large measure to the aforementioned mingling of the two Greek traditions that is manifest both in Greek and in Latin. In cases of greater uncertainty,



Cyprian and Pseudo-Cyprian 135

I have added a footnote for clarity on the decision to include the variant in the chart. Underlining has been used to draw attention to the witnesses that most often agree with the Cyprianic material.

vs

LXX

θ’

(Ps.-) Cyprian’s Vorlage

(Ps.-) Cyprian

Sus 2

ᾗ ὄνομα

ὀνόματι 230 588

nomine

Sus 2

Σουσάννα

Σουσάνναν 230 (Σωσ588)

Susannam

Sus 2

θυγάτηρ

θυγατέρα 106 230 534 584 588 (Hippol.E)

filiam

Sus 2

καλή… φοβουμένη

καλὴν… φοβουμένην 230 588 (Hippol.E)

formosam… timentem

Sus 3

×

ἦσαν (Hippol.E)

erant

2:31

ἡ εἰκὼν ἐκείνη

× Qtxt 26

×

2:31

αὐτῆς 1° (LXXo’ τῆς εἰκόνος)

τῆς εἰκόνος ἐκείνης Qtxt

eius imaginis

2:31

ἡ πρόσοψις… ἡ ὅρασις (LXXo’ ἡ πρόσοψις… ἡ πρόσοψις)

ἡ πρόσοψις… × (Hippol.)27

contemplatio… ×

3:16

λέγοντες (LXXo’ × εἶπαν)

καὶ εἶπον 88 588

et dixerunt

3:17

θεός

θεός (=LXXθ’) Btxt Q V (Hippol.)

Deus

27 Note that Hippolytus here omits ὑπερφερής, which is represented in Cyprian by elata. The Greek word is found in both text types. Mixing of these, whether in Greek or Latin manuscripts, explains why Cyprian would share part of an omission by haplography but not all of it.

136

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

vs

LXX

θ’

(Ps.-) Cyprian’s Vorlage

(Ps.-) Cyprian

3:17

βασιλεῦ

× (Hippol.S)

×28

3:18

βασιλεῦ

× (Hippol.A)

×

6:24 καὶ οἱ υἱοὶ αὐτῶν καὶ αἱ γυναῖκες αὐτῶν (LXXo’ καὶ αἱ γυναῖκες αὐτῶν καὶ τὰ τέκνα αὐτῶν)

~καὶ αἱ γυναῖκες αὐτῶν καὶ οἱ υἱοὶ αὐτῶν V 26 (cf. οʹ)

et uxores eorum et natos eorum

6:27 ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς

ἐν τῇ γῇ 230 311-538

in terra29

7:13 ἐρχόμενος (LXXo’ ἤρχετο)

ἐρχόμενος (καὶ) ἦλθεν (Iust.; TE ueniens uenit)

ueniens uenit

7:13 προσήχθη αὐτῷ (LXXo’ παρῆσαν αὐτῷ)

προσήγαγον αὐτόν A’ 26 (Iust.)

obtulerunt eum

9:24 προφήτην

προφητείαν 230 410

prophetia (Ps.)

12:7 × γνώσονται

× γνώσονται (=LXXθ’) B-26 (Hippol.)

× cognoscent30

Bel 37 ἀπέστειλέ σοι ὁ θεός

σοι ἀπέστειλεν (κύριος) ὁ θεός 541

tibi misit Deus; Var Dominus (Ps.)

Bel 38 ×

+ κυριος 541*

Dominus (Ps.)

Bel 38 ἀγαπῶντας

ἐκζητοῦντας 230

quaerentes (Ps.)

28 CY ep 58,5 (326,109) has the minus, but Cyprian’s other three citations of the verse, with the Vg, have the plus rex. PS-AU spe 44 (493,8) matches the minus. 29 The pairing of ἐν τῇ γῇ | in terra is uncertain since at Dn 7:17, VL 176 and LUC par 30 (253,42) here too read in terra for LXXθ’ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, which has no extant variants. Nevertheless, super is a more likely translation of ἐπί, as in (Ps.-) Cyprian’s Dn 2:34, 9:6. 24. 27. Cf. Dn 7:23 LXXθ’ ἐν τῇ γῇ with VL 176, IR 5,3 (314,54), and LUC par 30 (253,53) in terra; Dn 11:16 LXXθ’ ἐν τῇ γῇ with VL 175vid and VL 176 n terra. 30 The allusion in this verse is literal enough to use for limited textual criticism, as Burkitt and Ziegler do. Furthermore, VL 176 and IR 4,26,1 (712,12) confirm the minus.



Cyprian and Pseudo-Cyprian 137

2. Linguistic analysis With the most complex aspect of these texts having been addressed, it is now possible to characterize them more fully. They are quite literal, though usually not slavishly so, resulting in a readable yet Hellenizing style interspersed with Semitisms. This general description also fits the Adversus Iudaeos’s citations of the previous chapter and Lucifer’s of a later one, yet the Cyprianic texts do have their distinguishing features. Here we will encounter a significant number of bland verbs and imprecise renderings, even though the bilingual reader can generally affirm the translator’s understanding of the Greek text if he compares it to the Latin. In the syntactic realm the use of audio with the genitive stands out, as does an abundance of relative clauses. Finally, an apparent theological intervention can be identified by applying our linguistic toolset to a Pseudo-Cyprianic citation. The previous sections showed that the Cyprianic material reflects readings from the two Greek texts as well as mixed readings. Given this complexity and the fact that this section focuses on the linguistic analysis of the Latin texts, this section does not usually indicate that a Vorlage came from LXXo’, LXXθ’, or a particular manuscript. Therefore, when the tables of this section align the Latin with its likely Greek source, the Greek column usually bears the simple heading “Vorlage”. These Greek readings all derive from the manuscripts; none are conjectures. The reader is invited to consult the Greek edition of Sus-Dn-Bel if interested in a particular reading’s manuscript support. 2.1. A sample text Consider Cyprian’s Dn 4:24, which was presented above as an example of a verse based on LXXθ’. It is one of the easier texts to present in alignment with its corresponding Greek text. θ’

LXX Dn 4:24

CY op

διὰ τοῦτο, βασιλεῦ, ἡ βουλή μου ἀρεσάτω σοι, καὶ τὰς ἁμαρτίας σου ἐν ἐλεημοσύναις λύτρωσαι καὶ τὰς ἀδικίας (+ σου codd) ἐν οἰκτιρμοῖς πενήτων· ἴσως ἔσται μακρόθυμος τοῖς παραπτώμασί σου ὁ θεός.

propterea, rex, consilium meum placeat tibi, et peccata tua eleemosynis redime et iniustitias tuas miserationibus pauperum, et erit Deus patiens peccatis tuis.

138

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

This Latin text is typical insofar as it follows the Greek closely but imperfectly. The Latin word order and syntax is very much subordinate to that of the Greek, with the exception of the transposition of Deus. There is an example of alignment of the critical Latin text with a variant in the LXXθ’ manuscript tradition, that is, the plus σου. Although most of the verse exhibits quantitative equivalence to the Greek, the translator felt free to employ the instrumental ablative eleemosynis for the Greek prepositional phrase ἐν ἐλεημοσύναις, omitting a direct equivalent for the preposition. The vocabulary corresponds fairly well to the Greek, though there are a few imprecisions. Take, for example, the pairing ἴσως | et. As there are no variants for these words in the two manuscript traditions, we approach them on the assumption that ἴσως | et goes back to the translator. He probably read the Greek word in the sense of “equally (so),” i.e. “likewise” rather than “perhaps.” He must not have been greatly concerned with establishing Latin parallels following Greek word formation, for he pairs τοῖς παραπτώμασι | peccatis rather than employing *transgressionibus, even though peccatum already serves as the standard translation for ἁμαρτία.31 The example verse just shown is typical of Cyprianic Sus-Dn-Bel: the Latin translation is understandable yet clearly bears the imprint of the Greek translation on which it depends. It departs from the Greek here and there, though variants in the Greek manuscript tradition often account for apparent departures. The linguistic register differs greatly from the classical literary tradition of Latin, as is to be expected for a translation of a translation, which was forged for use in a North African Christian liturgical and catechetical context rather than for the Roman literati of previous centuries. Whereas for the example verse the alignment with the Greek text is rather straightforward, the case is different for most of the Cyprianic material considered in this study. The latter’s presentation is complicated by correlations with both of the extant Greek traditions. This sample verse has allowed a synthetic approach wherein all the linguistic issues of the passage can be treated together. The rest of the verses, however, will not be treated in this way, for two reasons. Firstly, it would greatly lengthen this chapter. Secondly, an approach according to linguistic categories allows greater systematization.

On peccatum as the usual VL translation for ἁμαρτία, see R. Gryson (ed.), Esaias, II, 1652. *Transgressio in the sense of a moral transgression is current in early- and mid-3rd-c. Carthage, as shown by Tertullian’s ample usage and Cyprian’s use of it at CY pat 17 (128,325). Preceding the translation of τοῖς παραπτώμασι by peccatis, moreover, is etymologically non-aligned patiens | μακρόθυμος. It is not surprising that the Latin text reads thus since *longanimis is a Late Latin word that does not occur in Cyprian or in his contemporary Pseudo-Cyprianic texts. 31



Cyprian and Pseudo-Cyprian 139

2.2. Morphology a. Nouns in -io We observe a marked preference for verbal nouns in -io in the material studied, sometimes when the Vorlage is a verbal noun, but even when it is not:32 They appear in particular density in the latter part of Dn 9:27: auferetur meum sacrificium et libatio, et super illum sanctum execratio uastationum, et usque ad consummationem temporis consummatio dabitur super hanc uastationem. Vorlage

(Ps.-) Cyprian

2:31

πρόσοψις33

contemplatio

3:38

προσφορά

oblatio

4:24

οἰκτιρμός

miseratio

6:26

κυριεία

dominatio

9:4

ἔλεος

miseratio

9:7

αἰσχύνη

confusio

9:24

ὅρασις

uisio (Ps.)

9:26

χρῖσμα

unctio (Ps.)

9:27

σπονδή

libatio (Ps.)

9:27

βδέλυγμα

execratio (Ps.)

9:27 (2x)

ἐρήμωσις

uastatio (Ps.)

9:27 (2x)

συντέλεια

consummatio (Ps.)

12:4

συντέλεια

consummatio

12:4

γνῶσις

agnitio

12:7

διασκορπισμός

dispersio

vs

See p. 106, n. 41. Alternatively, it could be ὅρασις, which appears after πρόσοψις in LXXθ’. The former, however, is elsewhere rendered uisus or uisio in the material at hand. 32 33

140

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

b. Vulgarisms Cyprian is an important early witness to what may be called vulgarisms, though the term is here used in a restricted sense to refer merely to those aspects of a text that are subpar when measured by the classical standard. That is to say, no judgment is implied on the social status of the translators or recipients. Vulgarisms have difficulty making their way into literature, yet VL texts preserve them. Pseudo-Cyprian preserves the following non-classical conjugation and declension. vs(s)

Vorlage

(Ps.-) Cyprian

vulgar aspect

9:24

(τοῦ) χρῖσαι

ungueatur (Ps.)

for unguatur

τό

illum (Ps.)

for illud 34

9:26. 27

2.3. Lexicon a. Loan-words from Greek There are also Hellenisms not established in the literature of the Latin classical period. This is, likewise, a common feature of VL. Cyprian is the first author known to use the adjective holocaustus,35 as in Dn 3:40, though Tertullian had already employed nouns based on the same root. Of those in the following table, caminus, presbyteri, and thronus will later be given individual attention and their own subheadings among the other noteworthy lemmata.

Of Pseudo-Cyprian’s citations of 9:26. 27, the ones referred to here are PS-CY pa 13 (261,12) and PSCY pa 13 (261,16). Cf. E. Vineis, “Studio sulla lingua dell’Itala,” ItD 34 (1971) 136-248, 209-210; Rönsch, Itala, 276. More such instances will likely be identified as new editions of the Pseudo-Cyprianic corpus are published. Such is in the case for apparet illi baptisma, now apparet illum baptisma in PS-CY reb 3,1 (551,113), i.e. in the 2016 edition. 35 In Dn 3:40 holocaustos probably modified nos of the previous verse rather than representing a corruption of the neuter holocausta. Cf. Sap 3:6 in CY te 3,15 (106,11), CY Fo 12 (211,7), and CY ep 6,2,1 (31,36) for holocaustam hostiam, the only clear instance of Cyprian’s adjectival use. Also supporting the conclusion that holocaustos is an adjective in Dn 3:40 is the fact that Cyprian’s biblical texts, unlike other VL material, do not stand out for changing nouns in neuter -um to masculine -us. See Eduardo Vineis’s treatment of metaplasm from neuter to masculine in the VL Gospels: “Studio (part 1),” 192-196. 34



Cyprian and Pseudo-Cyprian 141

vs Vorlage

(Ps.-) Cyprian

Sus πρεσβύτεροι

presbyteri

Dn 3 κάμινος

caminus

3:25 ἐξομολογέομαι (cf. ἐξομολογησις)

exomologesis

3:38 ὁλοκαύτωσις (or ὁλοκαύτωμα)

holocaustum

3:40 ἐν ὁλοκαυτώσει

holocaustus, -a, -um

7:9 θρόνος

thronus

9:26 κατακλυσμός

cataclysmus (Ps.)

b. Semitisms Like the Greek texts on which the VL is based, it often preserves Semitisms. The most obvious of these is the parataxis most commonly expressed in VL as et… et…, which has mostly been omitted from the following specimens of Semitisms. Vorlage

(Ps.-) Cyprian

Sus 2

φοβουμένην τὸν κύριον

timentem Dominum

Dn 1:2

(ἔδωκε…) ἐν χειρὶ αὐτοῦ

(dedit…) in manu eius

2:31, 7:13

καὶ ἰδού

et ecce36

3:16

τό ῥῆμα

uerbum (as “matter, affair”)

3:25

ἀνοίξας τὸ στόμα αὐτοῦ

aperuit os suum et…

3:39

πνεῦμα ταπεινώσεως

spiritus humilitatis

vs

36 For more on the function of this phrase as it occurs in Hebrew, see A. Gianto, “Some Notes on Evidentiality in Biblical Hebrew,” Biblical and Oriental Essays in Memory of William L. Moran (ed. A. Gianto) (BibOr 48; Roma 2005) 133-153.

142

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

Vorlage

(Ps.-) Cyprian

3:41

φοβούμεθά σε

timemus te

3:41

ζητοῦμεν τὸ πρόσωπόν σου

quaerimus faciem tuam

3:42

ποίησον μεθʼ ἡμῶν

fac nobiscum

3:42

τὸ πλῆθος τοῦ ἐλέους σου

amplitudinem misericordiae tuae

6:24

καὶ εἶπεν ὁ βασιλεύς, καὶ ἠγάγοσαν τοὺς ἄνδρας (+ εκεινους 62′)

et iussit rex, et perduxerunt illos homines

6:25

εἰρήνη ὑμῖν πληθυνθείη

pax sit uobiscum

6:26

ἐκ προσώπου μου

a facie mea

6:26

LXXθ’ τρέμοντας καὶ φοβουμένους + LXXo’ τῷ θεῷ

timentes et trementes Deum

6:26

εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας

in saecula

9:5

παρήλθομεν

transgressi sumus

9:24

ἅγιον ἁγίων

sanctum sanctorum (Ps.)

vs

c. Vulgarisms The items in the following table are characteristic of Late Latin, though that does not exclude their occasional occurrence during the half-millennium preceding Cyprian. For example, the translation of ἀνήρ by homo should not surprise the reader, even though VL texts almost always translate it by uir and reserve homo for ἄνθρωπος.37 Already in Plautus, that is, in the late 3rd c. BC, we encounter this sub-literary usage

E.g. Cyprian cites 1 Cor 7:1-7, which has six instances of forms of homo or uir, the former always translating ἄνθρωπος and the latter ἀνήρ. In the first use of ἄνθρωπος | homo it is clear that the meaning is equivalent to ἀνήρ | uir. That ἄνθρωπος, in general, is not translated by uir bolsters the case that homo, in the sense of uir, was in currency. Furthermore, there are other VL examples of homo for ἀνήρ besides Cyprian’s Dn 6:24: e.g. Prv 28:14 in CY te 3,20 (114,5) as well as VL 94. Likewise, in prose Cyprian writes of a familiarissimi hominis et clerici in CY ep 59,9,4 (352,249). 37



Cyprian and Pseudo-Cyprian 143

spoken by a slave.38 Likewise, there are several 2nd and 3rd c. AD epitaphs with homo as the equivalent of uir.39 For the vulgarism ita ut, lexicalized as a single unit and functioning like the conjunction ut to introduce a result clause, Cyprian’s citation of Dn 2:35 may be the earliest datable instance, overlooked until now.40 Even so, it represents just one further step for vulgar Latin, which already in Plautus’s time often inserted ita into a main clause preceding ut.41 Eventually the words were joined and lexicalized to (sometimes) replace ut. vs(s)

Vorlage

(Ps.-) Cyprian

vulgar aspect

2:34

ἕως

quoadusque

for quoad / donec

2:35

ὥστε

ita ut

for ut (+ result clause)

6:24

ἄνδρες

homines

for uiri

d. “All-purpose” verbs As is the case for the VL in general, we here encounter “all-purpose” verbs, in particular facio, habeo, and sum.42 Each of these occurs for Greek verbs that have no obvious, etymologically related Latin equivalent. They exemplify a translation technique whereby a rather colorless verb (usually) allows another word in the ex38 Mi homo, et mea mulier, vos saluto; Plaut., Cist., 723. In this context the use of homo can be considered an insult. See F. Santoro L’Hoir, The Rhetoric of Gender Terms. “Man”, “Woman”, and the Portrayal of Character in Latin Prose (MnS 120; Leiden – New York – Köln 1992) 30-31. 39 O. Hirschfeld (ed.), Inscriptiones trium Galliarum et Germaniarum Latinae. I. Inscriptiones Aquitaniae et Lugudunensis (CIL 13/1/I; Berolini 1899, Berlin 1966) insc. 1838, 1906, 1945, 2000. Jules Pirson lists these and four other inscriptions among other, much later ones, dating none of them, in La langue des inscriptions latines de la Gaule (Bruxelles 1901) 257. For the dating of inscription 1838 to the 2nd c. or later, see A. Allmer – P. Dissard (ed.), Trion. Antiquités découvertes en 1885, 1886 et antérieurement au quartier de Lyon dit de Trion (MASL.L 25; Paris – Lyon 1888) 148. For the same dating of 1906 see Iidem (ed.), Musée de Lyon. Inscriptions antiques (Lyon 1888, 1889, 1890, 1892, 1893) I, 176. For 1945 as a 2nd-c. inscription, see ibidem, II, 404-408. For 2000 dating to the 1st half of the 3rd c. or earlier, see ibidem, III, 56. Cf. J. Schrijnen, “Homo in het oudchristelijk latijn,” MVAW.L 81/A6 (1936) 181-190 = “Homo im altchristlichen Latein,” Collectanea Schrijnen. Verspreide opstellen (Nijmegen 1939) 364-372; E. Löfstedt, Syntactica. Studien und Beiträge zur historischen Syntax des Lateins. II. Syntaktisch-stilistische Gesichtspunkte und Probleme (SHVL 10/II; Gleerup 1956) 43, 439. 40 Cf. Hofmann – Szantyr, Lateinische Syntax, 640; E. Löfstedt, Vermischte Studien zur Sprachkunde und Syntax (Lund, Sweden – London 1936) 65, n. 1. 41 Hofmann – Szantyr, Lateinische Syntax, 640; Löfstedt, Studien, 64-65. 42 I borrow Burton’s terminology of the “all-purpose” verb from Gospels, 93-94. See also Hofmann – Szantyr, Lateinische Syntax, 754-756.

144

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

pression to bear most of the semantic weight of the Greek verb. For the rendering of εἰρήνη ὑμῖν πληθυνθείη by pax sit uobiscum at Dn 6:25, it is possible that liturgical usage has interfered, or the gospel passages from which the liturgical greeting derives.43 Vorlage

Cyprian

3:25

ἐξωμολογεῖτο

exomologesin faciebat

3:39

προσδεχθείημεν

acceptos nos habe

6:25

τοῖς οἰκοῦσιν

qui sunt

6:25

εἰρήνη ὑμῖν πληθυνθείη

pax sit uobiscum

ἠσεβήσαμεν

impii fuimus

vs

9:5

Although trado is not as bland as the verbs above, the translation ne nos in obprobrium tradas (3:42) for μὴ καταισχύνῃς ἡμᾶς uses the noun obprobrium rather than the verb trado to bear most of the semantic weight of the expression. It can therefore be considered an addendum to the examples just given. e. Imprecisions For the pairing πληθυνθείη | sit above, the all-purpose verb may be due to the translator’s difficulty in understanding his Greek source: “may (peace) abound.” Πληθύνω figures in the following table as well, which highlights lexical imprecisions. Here the pairing is πληθύνω | inpleo: the translator has successfully identified a Latin verb of the same root, but not one that captures the meaning of “abound” or “increase.” The following are translations which did not stand the test of time but rather gave way to more precise renderings.44

43 A significant minority of VL texts translate εἰρήνη ὑμῖν by pax uobiscum (without *sit) where the Vg has the more literal pax uobis. Here is a non-exhaustive list: Lc 24:36 in VL 6, M-M 499A; Jo 20:19 in VL 2 (pas), VL 30; Jo 20:21 in VL 2, VL 3; Jo 20:26 in VL 2, VL 3, VL 6, CU-D ep (66,73). Cf. INS 2747 (265), a funerary inscription that reads pax uobiscum sit, Proiecta, Lampadia et Renate! 44 E.g. πληθύνω | (h)abundo at Dn 6:25 in VL 176, and πληθύνω | multiplico at Dn 12:4 in VL 176.



Cyprian and Pseudo-Cyprian 145

vs

Vorlage

Cyprian

2:32

χρηστός

bonus

4:24

τοῖς παραπτώμασι

peccatis

6:25

(εἰρήνη) ὑμῖν πληθυνθείη

(pax) sit uobiscum

12:4

πληθυνθῇ

inpleatur

f. Sparsely attested words VL translations contain a comparatively large number of sparsely attested words. These words are “rare” in the sense of their sparse attestation prior to VL, but there is good reason to believe that some of them may have been well established in spoken Latin.45 It would be quite odd to regularly intersperse truly rare, little-known words into a text that otherwise had no pretensions of belonging to a high register of Latin and which had to be understood by the many Christians of low social status. We work rather on the presumption that the translator employed a criterion of intelligibility in his vocabulary selection. That being said, here are some words and usages rarely attested prior to the Cyprianic material. vs(s) Vorlage

(Ps.-) Cyprian

2:34 ἕως

quoadusque

2:35 ὁ χαλκός

aeramentum46

3:40 ἐν ὁλοκαυτώσει

holocaustus, -a, -um47

4:24 οἰκτιρμός

miseratio (as charitable acts)

9:24. 26 συντέμνω 12:4 ἡ γνῶσις

breuio (Ps.) agnitio (as cognitio)

45 Vineis, “Antiche versioni,” 63-68; J. N. Adams, “Late Latin,” A Companion to the Latin Language (ed. J. Clackson) (Chichester, West Sussex – Malden, MA 2011) 257-283; J. M. Cañas Reíllo, “El Léxico de la Vetus Latina en el Contexto del Latín y de las Lenguas Romances,” Aem. 4 (2016) 159-194. 46 Rönsch, Itala, 22. 47 See p. 140, n. 35.

146

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

g. Lexical doublets, pious additions Cyprian’s text exhibits a few lexical doublets, though they suggest various motivations. In the first example of the following table, the explanation is simple: when the two Greek texts were combined, whether in Greek or in Latin, both words were retained. This does not seem to be the case in the other two examples. In Dn 6:23, the translator captures two aspects of a Greek word without a full Latin equivalent. It may also be considered a pious expansion, emphasizing the pagan king’s trust and belief in God in order to provide a model for the Christian congregation. In the third example, it may again be a motivation of piety that leads the translator or reviser to expand on God’s capabilities with a double rendering. Vorlage

Cyprian

2:35

LXXo’ ἀχύρου + LXXθ’ κονιορτός

palea aut puluis

6:23

ἐπίστευσεν (τῷ θεῷ αὐτοῦ)

confidebat et crediderat (Deo suo)

(θεός…) τέρατα

(Deus…) prodigia mirabilia

vs

(6:26)-27

The second two examples in the table above could be considered under another rubric as well, namely that of pluses around the use of Deus or Dominus. Thus in Dn 6:26 to Deum is added summum, and in 7:9 Daniel’s prayerful cry of σοί, κύριε becomes the expanded, pathos-filled tibi, Domine, tibi. In Bel 5 meum is added to Dominum Deum. Despite the liberty taken for these departures from the Greek, one does not find entire new passages cut from whole cloth. h. Noteworthy lemmata h.1. Censeo, iubeo Consider now one of the greater departures from literalism, the translation of ἐτέθη δόγμα in Dn 6:26 by Cyprian’s censeo ego.48 Δόγμα’s derivation from δοκέω may have led to the choice of its equivalent, censeo; this is a much more successful 48 Note that Dn 6:25 and 6:26 are best divided differently in LXXθ’ and Cyprian, for in the latter a facie mea completes the previous verse: pax sit uobiscum a facie mea. So, although it is tempting to interpret ego as the equivalent of the Semitism ἐκ προσώπου μου, this Greek phrase is, in fact, already rendered. Perhaps this explains why the TLL gives ἐκ προσώπου μου ἐτέθη δόγμα τοῦτο but omits a facie mea, beginning with censeo; H. Hoppe, “Censeo,” TLL III, 786-796, 794, line 14.



Cyprian and Pseudo-Cyprian 147

translation than δοκέω’s cognate *doceo or even *dogma would have been. The expression succeeds in Latinizing the phrase: the verb is appropriate to the context,49 and the solemnity of a royal decree is appropriately marked by the plus of an emphatic ego. A lesser departure from the Greek, also concerning the king and his commands, occurs few verses prior in Dn 6:23. The contextually appropriate (rex…) iussit translates the blander (ὁ βασιλεύς…) εἶπεν, which allows the translator to leave the following ἀνενέγκαι in the infinitive, as eici, while preserving standard Latin syntax. h.2. Caminus Although the Cyprianic citations barely overlap with Tertullian’s and therefore offer little for direct comparison, their allusions to Dn 3 provide an interesting case of vocabulary shift from the one to the other. Namely, Tertullian always uses fornax as the equivalent of κάμινος in his five uses of the word in allusion to Dn 3,50 which accounts for all but one of his six uses of the Latin word in his corpus. Caminus does not appear in his corpus yet is Cyprian’s exclusive word for κάμινος in Dn 3. He employs caminus ten times over eight works, always in the context of that chapter. Four of the ten instances are citations of 3:17, whereas the other six are allusions. Contemporary Pseudo-Cyprianic works, likewise, use caminus in the two instances in which they use the word to in allusion to Dn 3. What is one to make of this vocabulary shift? Both words are well established in the Latin language and are legitimate translations of κάμινος, with similar ranges of meaning. Although Tertullian does not provide a direct quote, his consistency over five allusions and his exclusion of caminus suffice to consider fornax his translation (oral or written) for κάμινος in Dn 3, and probably that of his contemporary fellow Carthaginians as well. The fact that Cyprian and Pseudo-Cyprian consistently use caminus over so many works leaves little doubt that it gained prevalence for Dn 3. One way in which this could have happened would be the passage from speaking and writing about Dn 3 in Latin to the establishment of a written translation of Dn per se, in which a translator chose caminus over fornax, thereby influencing subsequent writers.

49 The corresponding definition of the TLL is the one at II.B: existimare aliquid faciendum esse. It is subdivided into: II.B.1 suadere, admonere, probare, sententiam dicere (imprimis in senatu); and II.B.2 statuere, constituere, decernere (imprimis de senatus consultis; sunt loci, qui possint trahi ad II.B.1 [suadere]); Hoppe, “Censeo,” 792-796. This section, however, has no examples that match the first-person, singular conjugation of Cyprian’s censeo. 50 Fornax in the context of Dn 3: *TE or 15,2 (265); *TE Marc 4,10,12 (138,102); *TE Marc 4,21,9 (270,63); *TE sco 8,6 (1083); *TE Pra 16,6 (190,34).

148

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

h.3. Presbyteri Another interesting Cyprianic allusion concerns Sus, where we find the pairing πρεσβύτεροι | presbyteri.51 The word is found throughout the chapter to refer to the two corrupt judges, who are Jewish elders. Although Tertullian provides us with no translation or allusion, he does give a precedent for using presbyter in Old Testament contexts.52 Presbyter, of course, for Christians refers primarily to those ordained by a bishop to the order of presbyter.53 In Cyprian’s scriptures, and in the VL more broadly, senior is the more common translation of πρεσβύτερος. For the ancient Christian congregations, presbyter in Jewish contexts would have lent itself to misinterpretation, that is, the projection of a Christian-style hierarchy onto the Jewish community. Furthermore, Sus shows the two presbyteri in a negative light. For these reasons, it is likely that Cyprian’s allusion reflects the true vocabulary of his written text of Sus; had it read *seniores it could have been easily retained and more easily understood in his allusion. Despite presbyter’s potential for misinterpretation when used in Jewish contexts, for both Tertullian, treating Is 3:14,54 and Cyprian, treating Sus, this rendering does confer one advantage. Namely, it lends itself to reinterpretation within the Christian context. This is precisely what the two Carthaginians do: they interpret the originally Jewish presbyteri as Christian priests for the moral sense. h.4. Spiritus In allusion to Dn 3:50 Cyprian gives spiritus roris as the equivalent of πνεῦμα δρόσου. Per se the VL pairing πνεῦμα | spiritus is unremarkable, but in contrast to Vg uentus it stands out for how it marked the Latin liturgy and formed interpretation of the passage even long after Jerome’s translation.55 h.5. Thronus The pairing of θρόνος | thronus in Dn 7:9 of Pseudo-Cyprian’s Ad Novatianum helps to establish it within the same historical context as authentic Cyprianic cita-

CY ep 43,4,3 (205,79). Πρεσβύτερος occurs throughout the chapter in both Greek versions. In TE Marc 3,22,2 (186,14) he writes of the presbyteri et archonti et sacerdotes Iudaeorum similarly of the presbyteri et archontes populi of Is 3:14 in TE res 20,3 (945) and TE Marc 4,42,2 (510,8). 53 Cf. C. Mohrmann, “Les origines de la latinité chrétienne à Rome,” VigChr 3 (1949/2-3) 67-106, 163183; 81. 54 See p. 148, n. 52. 55 K. Zilverberg, “Old Latin Daniel in Antiphons and the Benedicite of the Earliest Manuscripts of the Roman Mass and Office,” Resourcing the Prayers of the Roman Liturgy: Patristic Sources. Proceedings of the Tenth Fota International Liturgical Conference, 2017 (ed. J. Briody) (Wells, Somerset, England 2018) 34-47, 35-37. 51 52



Cyprian and Pseudo-Cyprian 149

tions.56 This claim is based on thronus being by far the most common translation of θρόνος in authentic Cyprianic biblical citations, and probably the exclusive one in Ad Novatianum.57 Despite this, both authors use not thronus but sedes in their prose; in authentic prose, this obtains even for the divine throne — that is, in the same context as that of Dn 7:9.58 2.4. Syntax a. Hellenisms and a Semitism Having examined various lexical phenomena, let us now briefly consider those that occur more on the syntactical plane. What initially appears to be an absurdly slavish translation, a Greek-based calque offensive to Latin ears, comes in Dn 9:6 as non audiuimus puerorum tuorum prophetarum quae locuti sunt for οὐκ ἠκούσαμεν τὼν παίδων σου τῶν προφητῶν, ἃ ἐλάλησαν. Surprisingly, the genitive case of τὼν παίδων (σου) τῶν προφητῶν has been retained, which appropriately follows the verb ἀκούω but not audio. Despite the shock of audio being construed with a genitive rather than an accusative, we must not so hastily reprimand the translator. We can situate this phenomenon for audio within a larger class of verbs that, under the influence of the Greek language, sometimes defied classical Latin syntax by taking their objects in the genitive.59 Although this offends the classically trained ear, that does not mean that it would not have been understood by most or all of the Christian congregation. In any case, such a usage highlights the unpretentious nature of Cyprian’s Sus-Dn-Bel; it was not written to compete with classical literature, at least not on the latter’s terms. The pairing τό | illum (Dn 9:26. 27), listed above among morphological vulgarisms, also reflects a feature of spoken Latin that will become the definite article in Cf. the introduction to PS-CY Nov in the present work, especially p. 38. Nevertheless, as with the Cyprianic biblical lexicon in general, this pairing admits of exceptions. Sedes can be found for θρόνος at Prv 8:27 in CY te 2,1 (29,8), and Is 66:1 in CY te 2,4 (32,11) and CY te 3,5 (92,2). Sedes at Is 14:13 in CY ep 59,3,2 (341,76), has no Greek equivalent. There are five occurrences of thronus in biblical citations of PS-CY Nov, all in paragraph 17. 58 Sedem quam [Deus] inhabitat in CY hab 1 (285,32); Christi sedem in CY mort 22 (29,380). Cf. cum [Christo Domino] in aeternis sedibus adque in regnis caelestibus in CY mort 22 (29,374). There is just one pertinent citation to make from the prose of the Pseudo-Cyprianic work under consideration: Illic impudenter et sine ulla ordinationis lege episcopatus appetitur, hic autem propriis sedibus et cathedrae sibi traditae a Deo renuntiatur. in PS-CY Nov 2,6 (139,22). For the differentiation between African thronus and European sedes at Hbr 12:2, see H. J. Frede (ed.), Epistula ad Titum, Philemonem, Hebraeos (VL 25/2; Freiburg im Breisgau 1983-1991) 1029. 59 The most thorough list of such occurrences in the Bible can be found in Rönsch, Itala, 438-439. For analysis and more examples, including even one from Horace, see Hofmann – Szantyr, Lateinische Syntax, 83-84; G. Calboli, “Latin Syntax and Greek,” New Perspectives on Historical Latin Syntax. I. Syntax of the Sentence (ed. H. H. Hock) (TLSM 180/I; Berlin – New York 2009) 65-193, 79, 82. 56 57

150

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

the Romance languages.60 The existence of the Greek article encourages this trend, especially when the translator seeks literality. By contrast, consider the resistance to a Hellenizing tendency in the use of the finite (ita ut nihil) remanserit at Dn 2:35, rather than an infinitive,61 for the Greek infinitive (ὥστε μηδὲν) καταλειφθῆναι. Such a translation manifests, despite the usual literal nature of our texts, a willingness to depart from Greek syntax in favor of a true Latin construction. At Dn 6:24 we find iubeo followed not by an infinitive or other expected complement for a Latin command, but rather encounter Semitic parataxis: et iussit… et perduxerunt. vs 6:24

Vorlage

(Ps.-) Cyprian

καὶ εἶπεν ὁ βασιλεύς, καὶ ἠγάγοσαν τοὺς ἄνδρας (+ εκεινους 62′)

et iussit rex, et perduxerunt illos homines

b. Vulgarisms The examples of the following table are not surprising in a vulgar Latin context, and can even have early precedents. As with the use of homo for uir, considered in the previous section, the phrase uenit in Hierusalem finds precedents going back to Plautus. It uses the preposition in for motion toward a city, rather than the simple accusative following a verb of motion.62 Admittedly, the phenomenon can by partially explained by the translator’s desire for clarity while treating the indeclinable form Hierusalem. Although its inclusion is also conditioned by the Greek εἰς which it translates, the translator(s) of our material has elsewhere shown himself capable of liberty in the translation of a preposition: he feels free to render Dn 4:24 ἐν ἐλεημοσύναις by the ablative eleemosynis, rather than *in eleemosynis or *per eleemosynas.63 He likewise omits ἐν in favor of the ablative in Dn 3:38, ἐν τῷ καιρῷ τούτῳ | hoc tempore.

See n. p. 98, n. 26. Hofmann – Szantyr, Lateinische Syntax, 639-640. These authors refer to Tertullian for their earliest evidence of the tendency: 2 Cor 2:7 in TE pud 13,2 (206,8). Similar resistance to the Hellenizing tendency can be found at Act 5:15 in VL 5, VL 50, VL 51, VL 54, and VL 56, as well as Act 14:15 in VL 5, VL 51, and VL 55. In the citation of Hofmann – Szantyr just provided, they refer to codex “e”, i.e. VL 50, for Act 14:15. Since this codex has no finite verbs for Greek infinitives at Act 14:15, presumably codex “d”, i.e. VL 5, was intended. 62 Adams, Social Variation, 328-329; Idem, “Companion,” 260; Rönsch, Itala, 444-445. 63 See p. 138. 60 61



Cyprian and Pseudo-Cyprian 151

Consider the following additional contextual data. At Mt 2:1 Cyprian’s translator is willing to omit the preposition and use a declinable noun for παρεγένοντο εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα | aduenerunt Hierosolyma.64 The Pseudo-Cyprianic De rebaptismate employs an unnecessary preposition even while declining the city at Act 1:4: ἀπὸ Ἱεροσολύμων μὴ χωρίζεσθαι | ab Hierosolymis ne discedere.65 For Cyprian’s uenit in Hierusalem the presence of the Greek preposition and the indeclinable form of the noun lent themselves to the increasing Late Latin use of the preposition vis-à-vis synthetic forms. vs

Vorlage

Cyprian

vulgar aspect

ἦλθε… εἰς Ιερουσαλημ uenit… in Hierusalem

in + name of city, rather than simple accusative

3:18

ὅτι

quoniam66

avoidance of infinite + accusative; quoniam for quod

3:38

τόπος τοῦ καρπῶσαι… καὶ εὑρεῖν ἔλεος

locus sacrificare… et infinitives of purpose inuenire misericordiam

3:40

πίονες

pinguissimi

superlative for positive67

3:51

εὐλόγουν τὸν θεὸν

benedicebant Deum

bene + dico as a verb, with accusative68

6:23

ἐπίστευσεν

(confidebat et) crediderat

pluperfect for imperfect69

1:1

CY te 2,12 (45,5). Cf. CY te 2,29 (70,38) uenerunt Hierosolyma. PS-CY reb 2,2 (550,81). Of the four times Cyprian cites this verse, the critical texts show quoniam only here, otherwise quia. 67 Such embellishment is a common trait of the VL, including Cyprian’s texts, as can be seen in Rönsch, Itala, 415-417. Cf. J. Svennung, Untersuchungen zu Palladius und zur lateinischen Fach- und Volkssprache (AVEU 44; Uppsala 1935) 281; Vineis, “Antiche versioni,” 77-78. 68 C. Mohrmann, “Les éléments vulgaires du latin des chrétiens,” VigChr 2/2 (1948) 89-101, 183; Rönsch, Itala, 440. 69 Confidebat et crediderat seems to derive from the single verb ἐπίστευσεν. The use of the two verbs in parallel helps to establish that the second one is intended in the sense of an imperfect. Indeed, Cyprian elsewhere uses credidi for the present tense and credideram for the imperfect, following the same pattern as noui. See J. Schrijnen – C. Mohrmann, Studien zur Syntax der Briefe des hl. Cyprian. II. Teil (ed. J. Schrijnen) (LCP 6; Noviomagi 1937) 16-18; P. A. H. J. Merkx, Zur Syntax der Kasus und Tempora in den Traktaten des hl. Cyprian (LCP 9; Nijmegen 1939) 93-97. 64 65 66

152

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

vs 6:24

Vorlage

Cyprian

vulgar aspect

(ἠγάγοσαν… τοὺς) διαβαλόντας

(perduxerunt… qui) accusauerunt

perfect for pluperfect70

c. The plus erat Cyprian likewise departs from the extant Greek witnesses in adding erat to a nominal clause in Sus 1: uir…, cui nomen erat Ioachim | ἀνὴρ… καὶ ὄνομα αὐτῷ Ιωακιμ. Pseudo-Cyprian does likewise at Dn 7:9: uestitus eius erat tamquam nix. This is no surprise, for Latin does not tend to omit the verbal copula in the past tenses.71 Furthermore, Cyprian tends to supply the verb for Greek noun sentences.72 The translator(s) or reviser(s) has made the passage sound natural for his Latin-speaking congregation. d. The perfect The Pseudo-Cyprianic Ad Novatianum renders the imperfect ἐθεώρουν by the perfect uidi at Dn 7:9. Although this case must be considered within the broader context of the changes introduced into the verse,73 there are similar instances at Dn 2:32 and Sus 1 that are more straightforward; they have the pairing ἦν | fuit.74 This can be contextualized within the larger framework of Cyprian’s scriptures, for one finds the exact same translation of ἦν elsewhere.75 Such a translation of ἦν even occurs even in a passage as theologically weighty as the prologue of Jo, where Cyprianic texts vacillate between erat and fuit.76 This is a departure from the usual rendering of the Greek imperfect by For the frequent equivalence of the perfect and pluperfect in Late Latin, see Hofmann – Szantyr, Lateinische Syntax, 320-322. 71 Hofmann – Szantyr, Lateinische Syntax, 419-423. 72 Capelle, Psautier, 28. 73 See the treatment beginning on p. 155. 74 Since the Greek of Sus 1 begins with καὶ ἦν but Cyprian’s citation begins with fuit, at first blush is seems that his text lacks the initial word. Nevertheless, the question remains open as to whether his scriptures lacked an equivalent to this καί, or he simply began quoting at fuit. Consider, for instance, that Cyprian quotes Act 1:14 twice, once with the initial et and once without it. The omission may well be due to stylistic concerns both in the case of Act and of Sus. See CY or 8, (94,121); CY un 25, (267,586). Cf. Novatian’s similar witness from the mid-3rd c., at *NO pud 9,2 (121,2): Fuit, ut legimus, Susanna, filia helciae, uxor Ioachim, pulcherrima facie, pulchrior moribus. 75 E.g. Jo 1:9 in CY te 1,7 (12,3); Jo 1:10 in CY te 1,7 (12,5); Mal 2:5 in CY te 2,5 (34,20) and CY te 3,20 (118,122); Mal 2:6 in CY te 2,5 (34,22). For the prologue of John’s Gospel Cyprian’s examples of fuit could be multiplied. He attests a fluctuation between erat and fuit, even among multiple citations of the same verse. 76 See previous note. 70



Cyprian and Pseudo-Cyprian 153

its Latin counterpart in Cyprian. Such a departure from the Greek tense presumably reflects a Latin usage current in Carthage of the first half of the 3rd c.77 e. Relative clauses The text exhibits relative clauses when no such construction can be found in the Greek. This technique is employed mostly to render Greek participles preceded by the article.78 In some cases, a Latin verb is added without any direct equivalent in the source text, as in Sus 1, Dn 3:40, and 6:26. Although each context affects verb placement, at Dn 3:40 the order subject-verb-object (SVO) fits within a wider trend in vulgar Latin that would eventually lead to the same order in Romance languages.79 Vorlage

(Ps.-) Cyprian

ὄνομα αὐτῷ

cui nomen erat

2:35

ὁ πατάξας

qui percussit

3:40

πιόνων

qui sunt pinguissimi

6:24

τοὺς διαβαλόντας

qui accusauerunt

6:25

τοῖς οἰκοῦσιν

qui sunt

6:26

τοῦ θεοῦ Δανιηλ

Deum summum cui seruit Danihel

7:13

οἱ παρεστηκότες

qui adsistebant

9:4

ὁ φυλάσσων

qui seruas

9:4

τοῖς ἀγαπῶσί σε

qui te diligunt

9:26

τῷ ἐρχομένῳ

qui ueniet (Ps.)

Bel 580

τὸν κτίσαντα

qui condidit

vs Sus 1

77 Cf. Tertullian’s frequent (early 3rd-c.) use of ἦν | erat for the prologue of Jo: Jo 1:1 in TE Her 20,4 (134,27); TE Pra 13,3 (174,12); TE Pra 19,6 (196,32); and Jo 1:1-3 in TE Pra 21,1 (198,4). In prose, however, he does substitute erat by fuit in TE Pra 21,2 (200,6): alius ostenditur qui fuerit a principio, alius apud quem fuit; alium sermonem Dei, alium Deum… One also finds sermo fuit in Tertullian’s prose precisely where he is describing the heretical position that the one who became flesh ceased being the pre-existent, fully divine Word, i.e. sermo fuit, not *sermo erat et est, in TE Pra 27,9 (226,43). 78 Cf. Rönsch, Itala, 443. 79 Väänänen, Latin vulgaire, § 355. 80 Vg 14:4.

154

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

f. Changes of voice One finds a surprising number of changes between active and passive voice for a text that tends to follow Greek syntax whenever possible. As one can see in the following table, this is done in disparate passages. Also note here the use of ut followed by the subjunctive for τοῦ plus an infinitive. For example, in Dn 9:25 we find ut signentur peccata rather than *ad signandum peccata or *ad signanda peccata. In fact, the gerund does not occur in our material at all, and the gerundive only as metuendus.81 Likewise, a Latin construction as common as the ablative absolute is lacking, due above all to the corresponding lack of the Greek genitive absolute in the material covered in this chapter. This suggests just how dependent the Latin usually is on the Greek, and makes the following examples stand out for their departure from the Greek verbs’ voices. Vorlage

(Ps.-) Cyprian

3:25

καταλειφθῆναι

remanserit

6:24

ἐνεβλήθησαν (LXXo’ ἐρρίφησαν)

miserunt (illos)

6:24

ἐκυρίευσαν αὐτῶν οἱ λέοντες

adprehensi sunt a leonibus

6:26

ἐτέθη δόγμα

censeo ego

9:24

τοῦ σφραγίσαι ἁμαρτίας…

ut signentur peccata…

καὶ ἀπαλεῖψαι τὰς ἀδικίας…

et deleantur iniustitiae…

τοῦ ἐξιλάσασθαι82 ἀδικίας…

expientur iniustitiae…

τοῦ ἀγαγεῖν δικαιοσύνην…

ut reducatur iustitia…

τοῦ σφραγίσαι ὅρασιν…

ut signetur uisio…

τοῦ χρῖσαι ἅγιον

ut ungueatur sanctum (Ps.)

τοῦ ἀποκριθῆναι καὶ τοῦ οἰκοδομῆσαι Ιερουσαλημ

ut respondeatur et ut aedificetur Hierusalem (Ps.)

vs

9:25

81 82

Φοβερός | metuendus at Dn 2:31 and 9:4. See p. 109, n. 50.



Cyprian and Pseudo-Cyprian 155

Vorlage

(Ps.-) Cyprian

9:26

ἐξολεθρευθήσεται

disperibit (Ps.)

12:4

διδαχθῶσι

discant

vs

2.5. Theological intervention? Let us now turn to a case of literary or theological intervention in a biblical citation within Pseudo-Cyprian’s Ad Novatianum. This passage stands among the most-cited of the book, so it is a prime candidate for the zealous scribe’s adaptation. LXX Dn 7:9. 10

PS-CY Nov

ἐθεώρουν ἕως ὅτου θρόνοι ἐτέθησαν, καὶ

uidi (inquit)

παλαιὸς ἡμερῶν ἐκάθητο ×…

uetustus dierum sedebat super eum…

× κριτήριον ἐκάθισε

ad iudicium sedit

thronum positum, et

It is odd, at least to the reader removed from the Aramaic author’s cultural milieu, to read that multiple thrones are placed, even though only the Ancient of Days is seated. Whereas there are ancient Near Eastern parallels for multiple gods seated together in council, Dn 7 provides no occupants but the Ancient of Days.83 The Latin scribe or reviser must have considered this as unusual as it seems to us nowadays and “fixed” the oddity, resulting in a lectio facilior. Since in Greek God’s throne has no distinguishing element from the others besides its occupant, the Latin scribe, whether the author of Ad Novatianum or the one who provided his biblical text, may have been theologically motivated to exclude any parallels to his throne, thereby excluding any parallels to his divine kingship. Given the usual literality of our material, it is surprising that ἐθεώρουν ἕως ὅτου θρόνοι ἐτέθησαν was not rendered *uidebam quoadusque throni positi sunt or a similar phrase. The actual Latin phrase, ending in the plus super eum, suggests that there is but one throne, already in place, from which the Ancient of Days, and he alone, thrones. So in Latin Daniel was not watching until the thrones were placed, but rather saw the one throne in place. The use of the perfect uidi for aorist ἐθεώρουν, along with the subsequent minus for ἕως ὅτου, must have been an intentional departure 83

J. Goldingay, Daniel (ed. B. M. Metzger) (WBC 30; Dallas 1989) 164-165.

156

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

to change this part of the scene from one in which enthronement takes place to one in which the seer glimpses what is already established.84 So too the preservation of the imperfect ἐκάθητο through sedebat, despite the abandonment of the imperfect ἐθεώρουν, must have been a conscious preservation of Greek aspect, which shows that God thrones from all eternity. Indeed, a literary awkwardness in the Greek text has also been resolved. Daniel saw God sitting, so presumably his throne is one of those that Daniel just saw placed. The Greek, however, does not say that God took his seat but rather that he was sitting, in the imperfect. By changing ἐθεώρουν ἕως ὅτου θρόνοι ἐτέθησαν to uidi thronum positum, the following sedebat can translate ἐκάθητο at once literally and naturally; that is to say, God was sitting on the throne that had already been put in place. Even though God was already sitting (sedebat) on his divine throne in Dn 7:9, after a few intervening phrases Pseudo-Cyprian’s 7:10 relates that he alone sat for judgment: κριτήριον ἐκάθισε | ad iudicium sedit. Here it seems that the translator or reviser put his effort not into maintaining the heavenly vision’s consistency through a second *sedebat but into preserving God’s singularity on his unique thronum positum. He avoided rendering κριτήριον in its contextually appropriate, collective sense of a group of judges, “court,” that is, the grammatical subject85 that sat (ἐκάθισε). Instead, consistent with the reduction at Dn 7:9 of the multiple thrones in Greek to the single throne in Latin, he added the preposition ad and made iudicium (κριτήριον) its object. So κριτήριον is rendered according to its meaning as an abstract noun, “judgment,” leaving God as the unrivaled subject of the sitting (ἐκάθισε): He sat for judgment. The Latin translator or reviser was not the only one to recognize the incongruence of the elements in Greek Dn 7:9-10, for its Lucianic recension and some other witnesses change ἐκάθητο, the imperfect of κάθημαι, to ἐκάθισε(ν), aorist of the synonymous καθίζω.

84 It should be noted that the departures from the Greek text of this verse bring it more in line with Apc 20:11 as cited in the same chapter of the Pseudo-Cyprianic work: uidi, inquit, thronum magnum et candidum sedentem super eum… in PS-CY Nov 17,3 (151,20). The work does not cite Apc 4:2, but two other authors have thronum positum in this verse, just as in Dn 7:9 of Ad Novatianum. One is the late late-4th- or early-5th-c. Spanish Vita S. Heliae, in A-SS Helia 1 (100,311), whereas the other is the 6th-c. African Primasius of Hadrumetum at PRIM 1,4 (47,28). Such a reading, one may speculate, may have been known to the author of Ad Novatianum. N.B. that A-SS Helia only recently was provided with a critical edition based on the two manuscripts, and it is not included in the VL apparatus for Apc 4:2. 85 The grammar allows an alternative, namely, that ἐκάθισε be considered transitive and κριτήριον its accusative object. In this reading God would be the implicit subject: (He) seated the law-court. The Greek context, however, includes multiple thrones and favors the reading of κριτήριον in the nominative, as the subject.



Cyprian and Pseudo-Cyprian 157

Eusebius of Emesa, writing a century after Cyprian, addressed similar concerns in his commentary on the passage. It seems that he was working from a text that already contained the lectio facilior of ἐκάθισεν (Dn 7:9), which creates its own problem of why God took his seat rather than sitting from all eternity. In his De incorporali libri quinque he explains: Vidit Daniel. Quid uidit? Quia sedes sunt positae. Quando? Si enim iudicium uidit, tunc utique cum quarti regni interemptio futura est. Iterum tamen, cum haec uideret, non fiebant ea quae uidebat. Cur autem et sedes uidet? Iudicium sedit: uisio ad efficientiam facta est rei. Quia enim apud nos iudices, in sede sedentes, subditos sibi iudicant, dicit: Sedes sunt positae. Et certe, si talis esset Deus natura, non debuit dicere: Positae sunt sedes, sed “erant”. Si autem positae sunt quae non erant antea collocatae, et sedit qui ante non sedebat, ergo nec tunc positae sunt, nec tunc sedit; sed ostendit per ea quae cognita sunt nobis uerba efficientiam Dei ad iudicium.86

So, the Carthaginian translator or reviser was not the only one to struggle with the verse. Theological intervention is not a salient characteristic of the Cyprianic material under consideration, but Dn 7:9-10 in Ad Novatianum exhibits noteworthy intervention motivated at least by literary, and perhaps theological, concerns. A stronger case for the theological nature of the intervention can be made if one considers the addition of patris, without any extant Greek equivalent, to the citation of Apc 6:16 in Ad Novatianum: cadite super nos et abscondite nos a conspectu patris sedentis super thronum.87 The intervention should not be too hastily considered a particularity of this work, for it endures in African texts for centuries, as manifested by its continuation in Quodvultdeus of Carthage and Fulgentius of Ruspe.88 This clearly theological intervention in the context of the divine throne makes it more likely that the adjustments to Dn 7:9 are also motivated by more than literary concerns. 3. Conclusion Comparing the rich, Cyprianic material just surveyed to other Latin witnesses, one must first note the agreement with Tertullian’s Dn 7:13, concerning the filius hominis ueniens. Even so, whereas the earlier Carthaginian relied primarily on LXXo’, the later one more often depends on LXXθ’. This corresponds to the shift to 86 The passage survives only in its 4th-5th c. Latin translation in EUS-E h 25,19 (168,18). Cf. the direct quotation of Dn 7:9 previously cited by the same work: Sedes sunt positae, et uetustus dierum sedit, in EUS-E h 25,5 (160,12). 87 PS-CY Nov 17,2 (151,15). Apc 6:16 πέσετε ἐφ᾽ ἡμᾶς καὶ κρύψατε ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ προσώπου × τοῦ καθημένου ἐπὶ τοῦ θρόνου. 88 FU ep 2,6 (199,78); QU bar 2,9,7 (481,24).

158

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

LXXθ’ in the broader church. Among the witnesses posterior to Cyprian, Irenaeus’s Adversus haereses shares the same text type in one verse, and similarities in another. More fragmentary agreements appear in Optatus of Milevis, VL 176 and 177, and various liturgical texts. This limited evidence does not allow one to consider Cyprian’s Sus-Dn-Bel as the basis for all the later VL witnesses. If, in fact, it was the basis, then it underwent thorough revision. We have seen that Cyprian offers texts based on LXXo’, more numerous ones on LXXθ’, and some mixed. Although we know that mixing took place in Greek transmission, our limited Latin evidence does not allow us to determine whether its mixed texts are simply dependent on Greek ones or reflect additional mixing that occurred in Latin transmission. Such uncertainty complicates the search for Cyprian’s corresponding Greek witnesses. Nonetheless, they can often be identified. Already for Tertullian we identified an important agreement with Greek 230, and in the Cyprianic material this manuscript, along with the related manuscripts Q and 541, stands out as well. The other manuscripts with frequent agreements were Greek 26 of the B group and the codex mixtus 588, whereas the most frequent agreements with the patristic citations derived from Justin Martyr and Hippolytus. The section on linguistic analysis highlighted features of these texts’ morphology, lexicon, and syntax. In the first of those domains the preponderance of nouns in -io stood out, as well a couple of vulgarisms. Concerning vocabulary, we observed many features common to the VL in general. For example, one finds here the first documented use of the adjective holocaustus, a Greek loan-word. Homo for ἀνήρ stands out against the expected, more common translation, uir. Although the translator is sometimes imprecise or employs bland verbs, he almost always proves his understanding of his source text. In the section on syntax we observed half a dozen vulgarisms, which are to be expected in Cyprian’s scriptural citations, and which occasionally are the earliest datable specimens of particular phenomena. The Hellenism of audio followed by the genitive instead of the accusative stood out, which likewise can be understood as part of a broader phenomenon, even one going back centuries but seldom manifest in writing. Although it was no surprise to find plenty of relative pronouns to render Greek constructions into Latin, one might not expect to find a whole series of verbs for which the voice was changed from the source to the target language, one of the translator’s greater liberties. Finally, this material contains a literary, and perhaps theological, intervention in Ad Novatianum. The author’s modified citation of Dn 7:9 resolved the incongruence of the verbal tenses as well as that of the multiple thrones but a single divine judge. Although the texts’ lexical doublets admit various explanations, two of them seem to result from pious intervention, both pluses in proximity to a reference to God.



Cyprian and Pseudo-Cyprian 159

The Cyprianic and Pseudo-Cyprianic citations have yielded precious information on the earliest stage of VL Sus-Dn-Bel in which we know that the book circulated in written form. We have already seen the modest continuity from Tertullian to Cyprian as well as textual variants of mid-3rd-c. Carthage that lived on in wider circulation. The linguistic analyses here proffered will likewise serve as a fundamental point of reference in the following chapters, for they will allow a judgment of continuity or discontinuity on the linguistic characterization of later witnesses.

Chapter 5 MINOR WITNESSES TO VL DANIEL

This short chapter gathers various witnesses to VL Sus-Dn-Bel who do not provide enough citations to merit a chapter of their own. Most of the material dates to the period that begins with Cyprian’s writings in the mid-3rd c. and ends by 360, the approximate date of Lucifer’s pertinent writings. The Letter of Barnabas is a possible exception since its Latin version may go back as far as the late 2nd c. or be as late as the mid-3rd c. 1. The Letter of Barnabas Joseph Heer demonstrated that this letter’s Latin translator had recourse to Latin biblical translations that differed from his own style and from the letter’s Greek Vorlage.1 Moreover, agreements between these biblical passages and those of very early North African sources such as Tertullian’s writings, the pre-Cyprianic VL 1 (“k” for Heer), and the Pseudo-Cyprianic De pascha computus establish the likely pre-Cyprianic, North African origin of some of the letter’s Latin biblical citations. The evidence for these claims comes principally from Is citations, which Gryson groups under the siglum X in his edition of VL Is; Gryson suggests that they may come from an early, Latin florilegium.2 The letter’s citations of Dn are quite free, both in Greek and in Latin. Nevertheless, in both languages it agrees with LXXθ’ against LXXo’, adding a piece of evidence in favor of the early shift to the Theodotionic text. Heer identifies three Latin, Theodotionic readings:3 θ’

Dn

LXXo’

BAR

Barn.

with BAR LXX

7:7

θηρίον… ὑπερφέρων ἰσχύι

bestiam… fortem

θηρίον… ἰσχυρόν4

θηρίον… ἰσχυρόν

Heer, Versio Latina, xxiii-xxxvii. R. Gryson (ed.), Esaias, II, 1653-1654; cf. ibidem, I, 16; Gryson – Frede – Fischer, Répertoire général (52007), I, 324. 3 Versio Latina, xxxi-xxxiii. 4 Barn. 4,5a (94). 1 2

162

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

θ’

Dn

LXXo’

BAR

Barn.

with BAR LXX

7:8

καὶ ἰδοὺ (+ ἄλλο 88) ἓν κέρας ἀνεφύη ἀνὰ μέσον αὐτῶν μικρὸν ἐν τοῖς κέρασιν αὐτοῦ

et ascendit aliud cornu breve in medio illorum

καὶ ἐξ αὐτῶν μικρὸν κέρας παραφυάδιον5

καὶ ἰδοὺ κέρας ἕτερον μικρὸν ἀνέβη ἐν μέσῳ αὐτῶν

μετὰ τούτους στήσεται

resurget retro

ἐξαναστήσεται ὄπισθεν6

ὀπίσω αὐτῶν ἀναστήσεται

7:24

That the Latin text follows LXXθ’ might be considered a small matter, assuming that its alignment merely follows its Greek source. The letter’s Latin translator, however, departs from the Greek letter’s citation of the portion of Dn 7:8 presented above. Instead we find a Latin “translation” which, like the letter’s Greek, depends on LXXθ’. The Latin phrase must not derive from the letter’s Greek, which is quite different and omits the LXXθ’ verb ἀνέβη corresponding to ascendit. The corresponding LXXo’ text likewise disagrees with the Latin. Given the translator’s regular use of Latin biblical citations that agree with early African witnesses, this one probably represents a text that had currency before the translator employed it. Its brevity suggests that his memory of the passage “interfered” with the work of this translator well-versed in sacred scripture;7 it is unlikely that he looked up the passage only to use a few words in a Latin verse otherwise derived from the letter’s peculiar Greek form. Let us make a final observation on the textual affiliation of the Letter of Barnabas, this time focusing on Greek text. Despite the evidence presented in the table above (from Heer’s study)8, which shows closer affiliation of the Greek letter with LXXθ’ than with LXXo’, Ziegler lists the Letter of Barnabas among several other early Greek Fathers whose writings clearly presuppose LXXo’.9 He devotes but one sentence to Barnabas, Clement of Rome, and the Pastor of Hermas all together, an evaluation repeated in Munnich’s second edition.10 Such brevity is understandable since they find in this material no literal citations of Sus-Dn-Bel. It is not clear, however, on what textual basis they claim that the Letter of Barnabas depends LXXo’ at any point.11 Barn. 4,5a (94). Barn. 4,4 (94). 7 Heer, Versio Latina, xxvi. 8 See p. 161, n. 1; cf. H. B. Swete – R. R. Ottley – H. St. J. Thackeray, An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek. With an Appendix Containing the Letter of Aristeas (Cambridge 21914) 48. 9 Sus-Dn-Bel (1954), 22. 10 J. Ziegler – O. Munnich – D. Fraenkel (ed.), Sus-Dn-Bel, 94. 11 There is no citation for the claim, at least not at the point where it occurs. The work that they cite in the previous paragraph does treat the Greek text of Dn in the earliest patristic witnesses, but the Letter of 5 6



Minor witnesses to VL Daniel 163

2. Novatian Novatian provides us a minimal amount of text for examination. Perhaps the most interesting word for our purposes is his (cum) duceretur in reference to Susanna being led away for execution (Sus 45). The genitive absolute verb in LXXo’ reads ἐξαγομένης, in LXXθ’ ἀπαγομένης, but only the Theodotionic variant ἀγομένης (Greek C, and Greek 239 of the Greek B group) corresponds literally to Novatian and the other early Latin Fathers. In fact, they are apparently unanimous in attesting duceretur rather than a verb in composition. They include Lucifer of Cagliari, Zeno of Verona, an anonymous 4th-c. homily associated with Zeno, Ambrose of Milan, Chromatius of Aquileia, Sulpicius Severus, the Pseudo-Augustinian Liber de divinis scripturis, and Jerome of Stridon, who would perpetuate the reading in his own translation.12 3. Victorinus Victorinus’s readings, from our modern point of view, mix material from LXXo’ and LXXθ’, and they do not consistently correspond to any one Greek witness. When comparing Victorinus to other VL witnesses, the agreements are indeed minimal and mostly coincidental. Moreover, the citations are short enough that there is a good chance that the bilingual Father wrote them from his memory of the Greek or Latin biblical text. Gryson extracted what he could from the Commentarius in Apocalypsin for his edition of VL Apc, citing the text under the siglum Y but finding no true lemma in the proper sense.13 The difficulties in analyzing this material, therefore, are many. Nevertheless, the early date and the European provenance, in contrast with the more abundant early, Barnabas is not included. See A. Bludau, “Die Apokalypse und Theodotions Danielübersetzung,” ThQ 79 (1897) 1-26. Ziegler probably depends on another of Bludau’s writings in which the latter makes the same claim about dependence of Barn. on LXXo’, for he cites this work in a general way at the beginning of the subsection containing the claim. See Die alexandrinische Übersetzung des Buches Daniel und ihr Verhältniss zum massoretischen Text (BSt[F] 2/2-3; Freiburg im Breisgau 1897) 15. Here Bludau only devotes one sentence to the matter, without providing any Greek text. In turn he cites Otto Bardenhewer for an evaluation of the citations of Dn in Barn; see Patrologie (ThBib; Freiburg im Breisgau 1894) 36f. Here, however, the issue of reliance on one Greek text type of Dn or the other does not arise. One must keep in mind, of course, that the late 19th-c. scholars had no access to our best witness to LXXo’, Greek 967. Ziegler and Munnich would have done well to take into account the findings of early 20th-c. scholars who found no special correlation between Barn. and LXXo’. Already in 1927 James A. Montgomery, cited by Ziegler and Munnich alongside Bludau, had corrected Bludau. See A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel (ICC; Edinburgh 1927) 48; cf. Swete – Ottley – Thackeray, Introduction to the Old Testament, 48. 12 LUC Ath 2,9 (93,20); ZE 1,40,2 (111,19); ZE 1,40,2 (111,19); *AN s Can 11 (1857); *AM sp 3,39-40 (166); CHRO s 35,3 (160,38); *SUL chr 2,1,6 (57,7); HI Dnlem 4 (948,788); PS-AU spe 3 (318,10). 13 Apc, 81-84.

164

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

African material, compel us to take some consideration of Victorinus’s witness to VL Dn. In the late 19th c. Burkitt emphasized Victorinus’s reliance on LXXo’ and found virtually no readings dependent on LXXθ’.14 He was limited, of course, by the Latin and Greek editions at his disposal. Munnich collated Victorinus’s citations for his edition of LXXo’ Sus-Dn-Bel but, like Gryson, recognized their limited utility for textual criticism.15 Victorinus’s citation of Dn 2:39-40 provides an example that does show dependence on LXXo’, especially the Hexaplaric manuscript Greek 88, but also the liberty with which he cites sacred scripture. Dn 2:39-40 θ’

LXXo’ with VICn

Greek 88 with VICn

VICn Apc 21,3 (120,15) with VICn LXX

39 καὶ μετὰ σὲ

39 καὶ μετὰ σὲ

39

39 καὶ ὀπίσω σου

στήσεται

αναστήσεται

Surget, inquit,

ἀναστήσεται

βασιλεία (+ ἄλλη 967)

βασιλεία

regnum aliud

βασιλεία ἑτέρα

ἐλάττων σου, καὶ

ἐλάττων σου, καὶ

humilius te, et

ἥττων σου, καὶ

βασιλεία ἐτέρα

τρίτη βασιλεία

tertium regnum

βασιλεία τρίτη

χαλκοῦ,

ἄλλη χαλκῆ,

erit,

ἥτις ἐστὶν ὁ χαλκός,

ἣ κυριεύσει πάσης

ἣ κυριεύσει πάσης

quod dominabitur totae

ἥ κυριεύσει πάσης

τῆς γῆς.

τῆς γῆς.

terrae.

τῆς γῆς.

40

16

40

καὶ βασιλεία τετάρτη

40

Quartum autem regnum

καὶ βασιλεία τετάρτη

durissimum et

ἔσται

40

ἰσχυρὰ

ἰσχυρὰ

fortissimum

ἰσχυρὰ (-ρότερα 230′’)

ὥσπερ ὁ σίδηρος

※ ὡς ὁ σίδηρος ⸔17

tamquam ferrum,

ὡς ὁ σίδηρος· ὃν τρόπον

Burkitt, Old Latin, 29-31. J. Ziegler – O. Munnich – D. Fraenkel (ed.), Sus-Dn-Bel, 99. Munnich’s reconstruction. 17 Greek 88 also gives the non-marked reading here: ὥσπερ ὁ σίδηρος (=LXXo’). 14 15 16



Minor witnesses to VL Daniel 165

LXXo’ with VICn

Greek 88 with VICn

VICn Apc 21,3 (120,15) with VICn LXX

θ’

ὁ σίδηρος λεπτύνει καὶ ὁ πρίζων πάντα καὶ

ὁ δαμάζων πάντα καὶ

quod domat omnia et

δαμάζει πάντα,

※ ὡς ὁ σίδηρος

οὕτως

πᾶν δένδρον

πᾶν δένδρον

omnem arborem

πάντα λεπτυνεῖ καὶ

ἐκκόπτων, καὶ

ἐκκόπτων, καὶ

excidit.

δαμάσει.

σεισθήσεται πᾶσα ἡ γῆ.

σεισθήσεται πᾶσα ἡ γῆ.

The “mixed” Latin citation just presented, like some by Tertullian and Cyprian, shows dependence on more than one textual tradition. Unlike them, Victorinus’s text tends to align with a Hexaplaric manuscript, Greek 88. By contrast, Victorinus (freely) cites Dn 11:37 according to LXXθ’, a verse presented in the following table. The attestation of this text type in addition to LXXo’ or its derivative Hexplaric version of Dn 2:39-40, reminds one once again of Cyprian, who cited according to LXXθ’, LXXo’, and a text that mixed these two. Dn 11:37 LXXo’

VICn Apc 13,3 (106,9)

with VICn

LXX

θ’

καὶ ἐπὶ τοὺς θεοὺς τῶν

καὶ ἐπὶ πάντας θεοὺς τῶν

πατέρων αὐτοῦ οὐ μὴ

πατέρων αὐτοῦ οὐ

προνοηθῇ καὶ ἐν

συνήσει καὶ ἐπὶ

ἐπιθυμίᾳ γυναικὸς

Desiderium mulierum

οὐ μὴ προνοηθῇ

non cognoscet…

ἐπιθυμίαν γυναικῶν

et nullum deum patrum

καὶ ἐπὶ πάντα θεὸν οὐ

suorum cognoscet

συνήσει

Var

ἐπὶ ἐπιθυμ.] ἐπιθυμία B-26 62 Hippol.A; om. ἐπί A’ 88 C 233 410 534 Hippol.BS

166

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

Victorinus employs a couple of morphologically vulgar forms in his Dn material. The single, corrupt manuscript, however, makes it impossible to sort out his morphology from that of later copyists. At Dn 2:39 he translates κυριεύσει πάσης τῆς γῆς as dominabitur totae terrae. In Christian Latin, dominor can take the dative (standard toti) or, mirroring the Greek, the genitive (standard totius).18 Here totus has been made to follow the first declension.19 Elsewhere Victorinus opts for the dative, when he translates Rm 6:9 θάνατος αὐτοῦ οὐκέτι κυριεύει as mors ei ultra non dominabitur.20 This, however, is not enough to determine the intended case of totae at Dn 2:39. At Dn 2:44, writing about the regnum, Victorinus’s manuscript reads ipsud instead of the standard *ipsum. This feature of vulgar Latin occurs widely in VL texts.21 Concerning Victorinus’s lexicon, one notes a fluctuation between statua and imago in reference to the statues of Dn 2-3, translating Greek εἰκών.22 Cyprian, likewise, uses both terms in the context of these chapters; one always finds imago in his citations, but he once writes statua in his prose.23 Indagabo is another interesting lexical choice by Victorinus. He uses it three times overall, twice in the context of Dn 2:44: Et regnum hoc alia gens non indagabit (LXXo’ ἐάσῃ); namque Deus percutiet et indagabit (LXXo’ ἀφανίσει; LXXθ’ λικμήσει) omnia regna terrae, et ipsud manebit in perpetuum. This passage principally follows LXXo’, but there is no clear Vorlage for either instance of indagabit. The context, however, suggests that it means “to destroy,” “to defeat,” or similar. “Cast down” seems an appropriate translation for Victorinus’s one other instance of the verb, in a free citation of Mi 5:5-6: “erit pax terrae, cum surrexerint in ea septem pastores et octo morsus et indagabunt Assur” - id est Antichristum – “in fossam Nebroth”: in damnationem diaboli.24 The scant evidence for Victorinus’s indago, three instances, only allows a hypothesis. Nevertheless, the definition “to cast down (a kingdom)” can be proposed since it has the virtue of uniting all Victorinus’s uses,

18 For dominor with the genitive, see Rönsch, Itala, 438. For the dative, see e.g. Vg Sap 17:2 and Vg 1 Mcc 6:63. 19 For the same process concerning unus, which shares its standard declension with totus, see Väänänen, Latin vulgaire, § 263. 20 VICn Apc 1,1 (46,11). 21 Vineis, “Studio (part 1),” 210-211. 22 He writes imago at in allusion to Dn 3 in *VICn Apc 13,4 (108,8) and *VICn Apc 13,4 (108,16). He writes statua in allusion to Dn 2:34 in *VICn Apc 21,3 (118,9) and to Dn 2:35 in *VICn Apc 21,3 (118,12). 23 He writes imago at Dn 2:31 (2x) in CY te 2,17 (53,3); Dn 2:34 in CY te 2,17 (53,7); Dn 2:35 in CY te 2,17 (53,9); Dn 3:17 in *CY ep 61,2,2 (381,20); Dn 3:18 in CY te 3,10 (98,17). This last verse he also cites elsewhere in his writings; see p. 37. He writes statua in his prose, alluding to Dn 3:16 in *CY ep 58,5 (326,108). 24 VICn Apc 8,1 (86,11). Mi 5:5-6: καὶ ἔσται αὕτη εἰρήνη· Ασσουρ ὅταν ἐπέλθῃ ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν ἡμῶν καὶ ὅταν ἐπιβῇ ἐπὶ τὴν χώραν ἡμῶν, καὶ ἐπεγερθήσονται ἐπʼ αὐτὸν ἑπτὰ ποιμένες καὶ ὀκτὼ δήγματα ἀνθρώπων· 6 καὶ ποιμανοῦσι τὸν Ασσουρ ἐν ῥομφαίᾳ καὶ τὴν γῆν τοῦ Νεβρωδ ἐν τῇ τάφρῳ αὐτῆς. Johannes Haussleiter suggests that indagabunt translates *πημανοῦσι (from πημαίνω, which means “plunge into ruin, undo” according to Liddell-Scott, 1401) rather than ποιμανοῦσι; Victorinus of Poetovium, Opera (ed. J. Haussleiter) (CSEL 49; Vindobonae – Lipsiae 1916) 84.



Minor witnesses to VL Daniel 167

none of which is fully integrated into the Thesaurus Linguae Latinae.25 Futhermore, the Father elsewhere writes of “casting down” the Antichrist, using the verb iacto. He writes: oportet… iactari eum [i.e. Antichristum] de caelo ubi habuit potestatem ascendendi usque ad illud tempus.26 This only reinforces the interpretation just offered for indagabunt Assur - id est Antichristum. 4. Lactantius Lactantius’s citations of Dn 7:13-14 show that he knew the passage in more than one form, as indicated by the underlined portions below. LAC in 4,12,12 (312,9)

LAC epit 42,4 (63,9)

LAC in (shorter citations)

Dn 7:13 Videbam, inquit, in uisu noctis, et ecce in nubibus caeli ut filius hominis ueniens et usque ad uetustum dierum peruenit. Et qui adsistebant, obtulerunt eum 14 et datum est ei regnum et honor et imperium, et omnes populi tribus linguae seruient ei, et potestas eius aeterna, quae numquam transibit, et regnum eius non corrumpetur.

Dn 7:13 Videbam in uisu noctis, et ecce in nubibus caeli ut filius hominis ueniens et usque ad antiquum dierum peruenit. Et qui adsistebant, obtulerunt eum 14 et datum est ei regnum et honor et imperium, et omnes populi tribus linguae seruient ei, et potestas eius aeterna, quae numquam transibit, et regnum eius non corrumpetur.

Dn 7:13: LAC in 4,12,15 (313,16) Dn 7:14: LAC in 4,12,19 (315,3)

Dn 7:13 et usque ad antiquum dierum peruenit. Et oblatus est ei… 14 datum est ei regnum et honor et imperium et omnes populi tribus linguae seruiunt ei, et potestas eius aeterna, quae numquam transibit, et regnum eius non corrumpetur.

For Lactantius’s Dn 7:13-14 the changes from one citation to another do not seem to be mere literary adaptations of his own, as the variants always agree with other VL witnesses. Consider, for example, the most substantial disagreement in Lactantius’s citations. The two left columns read qui adsistebant, obtulerunt eum,

25 K. Nelz, “Indago,” TLL VII/1, 1104-1106. All three of Victorinus’s uses of the verb appear in the article’s initial, text-critical section but are not used to establish the verb’s meanings. 26 VICn Apc 12,6 (102,5); the emphasis on iactari (but not the underlining) is from the edition. A few lines prior he cited Apc 12:9: iactatus est draco magnus, which corresponds to ἐβλήθη ὁ δράκων ὁ μέγας.

168

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

in agreement with Cyprian and authors who tend to reuse Cyprian’s citations.27 The right column reads oblatus est ei, supported by other VL witnesses.28 Lactantius’s agreement with VL 176 at Dn 7:13-14 is striking, especially in the second verse, an agreement mostly shared with Lucifer as well.29 The next chapter includes a study of the relation between Lucifer’s Dn and VL 176;30 their considerable agreement establishes that a text similar to VL 176 circulated by Lucifer’s time, in the mid-4th c. Lactantius, however, provides another piece of evidence, the citation of these two verses, suggesting that such a text could have circulated already by the first decades of the 4th c. 5. Firmicus Maternus Firmicus’s citations of Dn 2:31-35 and 7:13-14 reveal only minimal differences from Cyprian, whose Testimonia he quotes.31 These can be explained as the usual minor fluctuations that occur in the transmission of a text, whether the transmission from Cyprian to Firmicus, or the two works’ separate transmissions after the time of Firmicus. 6. Fortunatianus Among Fortunatianus’s brief citations of Dn, the longest verbatim one reproduces part of Dn 3:91: Nonne tres uiros misimus in fornacem? This agrees with the Latin citations of Pseudo-Vigilius in his Contra Varimadum Arianum of the mid-5th c. in North Africa, and a Pseudo-Augustinian sermon of uncertain date and origin.32 Various other Fathers agree with Fortunatianus and the two pseudonymous works except for their use of caminus rather than his fornax.33 Fortunatianus does use caminus in the prose immediately preceding the text under consideration, so his use of fornax in the citation should not be overemphasized. Since the citation in which fornax occurs 27 CY te 2,26 (63,3); FIR err 24,6 (134); PS-FIR con 2,6 (46,106); PS-AU alt (41,425). These correspond to προσήγαγον αὐτόν (Iust., Greek A’, and Greek 26). See p. 136. 28 VL 176; LUC par 30 (253,33); HIL Ps 144,1 (268,22); AU tri 2,33 (124,17); CHRY lap 12 (291,77); cf. p. 207. These correspond to προσηνέχθη (or προσήχθη) αὐτῷ. On προσηνέχθη rather than προσήχθη, see p. 207. 29 See the table of agreements with Lucifer for Dn 7:13-14, pp. 196-198. 30 See p. 173. 31 At Dn 2:31 Firmicus has ipsius against eius in CY te 2,17 (53,3); at Dn 2:35 Firmicus has ut against aut in CY te 2,17 (53,9); at Dn 7:14 Firmicus has seruient against seruiens in CY te 2,26 (63,6) but in agreement with the variant seruient in one Cyprianic manuscript. 32 PS-VIG Var 1,51 (62); PS-AU s Mai 75,1 (147). Cf. Evagrius Gallicus of the first half of the 5th c., who transposes misimus in fornacem: EVA-G 7 (299,58) nonne tres viros in fornacem misimus? 33 IR 5,5,2 (68,43); CHRO Mt 59,1 (493,31).



Minor witnesses to VL Daniel 169

is a short one, and the author sometimes cites rather freely, we cannot rule out his own adaptation from *caminus to fornax. Nevertheless, the attestation of the whole phrase by other Fathers means that we must work on the assumption that Fortunatianus knew the verse in the form in which he cited it. In doing so he agrees with Tertullian’s vocabulary in numerous allusions to Dn 3, and disagrees with Cyprian’s use of caminus.34 This same phrase at Dn 3:91 agrees with just two Greek manuscripts in transposing LXXθ’ ἄνδρας τρεῖς to the variant τρεῖς ἄνδρας | tres uiros: Greek Q and Greek 584, the latter of the Greek A group. The two manuscripts with τρεῖς ἄνδρας stand out for other variant readings that match VL ones.35 In this same verse Fortunatianus’s fornacem matches Pseudo-Athanasius’s variant of τὴν κάμινον,36 against LXXθ’ εἰς μέσον τοῦ πυρός. Fortunatianus immediately follows that citation with one from the next verse, Dn 3:92, albeit in adapted form: Ecce uideo quattuor uiros et quarti figuram sicut fili Dei. The word figura appears again in this context in northern Italy some three decades later, when Ambrose of Milan alludes to the same verse.37 Apparently this represents a minority tradition among Latin Fathers, for in this context they usually use aspectus (ὅρασις), similitudo (ὁμοίωμα), or both of these combined, prior to Vg species.38 The agreement with Ambrose’s figura is even more striking when one considers the Greek variant reading to which it may correspond. Only Greek 541 of the Greek Q group adds the plus ἡ μορφή to the LXXθ’ reading ἡ ὅρασις τοῦ τετάρτου (+ ἡ μορφή 541) ὁμοία υἱῷ θεοῦ at Dn 3:92. Once again a manuscript from the Greek Q group shows a particular reading probably supported by the VL. Furthermore, the VL translation μορφή | figura is attested from at least the time of Cyprian.39 Fortunatianus’s citation of Dn 3:92, as in the previous verse, shares similarities to Pseudo-Athanasius’s citation. Each has omitted about half of King Nebuchadnezzar’s exclamation as it appears in LXXθ’ (Pseudo-Athanasius’s omission underlined): Ὅδε ἐγὼ ὁρῶ ἄνδρας τέσσαρας λελυμένους καὶ περιπατοῦντας ἐν μέσῳ τοῦ πυρός, καὶ διαφθορὰ οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν αὐτοῖς, καὶ ἡ ὅρασις τοῦ τετάρτου ὁμοία υἱῷ θεοῦ. Pseudo-Athanasius reads: Ἰδοὺ θεωρῶ ἐγὼ ἄνδρας τέσσαρας, καὶ ὁ τέταρτος ὅμοιος υἱῷ θεοῦ.40 Not only does he agree with Fortunatianus on ἰδού | ecce, an LXXo’ reading, For Tertullian, see p. 77. For Cyprian, see p. 147. Greek Q matches many VL readings, from Tertullian on. Greek 584 has affinity especially to Lucifer’s citations; see p. 205. 36 PsAth. hae 4 (509C). 37 *AM fi 1,80 (35): quarti quasi angeli uidit figuram. 38 Aspectus in PS-VIG Var 1,51 (62); [CHRY] I,859 (120,50). Similitudo in HI Is tr 2 (106,11); EVA-G 7 (299,59). The double reading aspectus and similitudo in PS-AU s Mai 75,1 (147); RES-R 5180 (510). 39 Phil 2:6 in CY te 2,13 (47,36), CY te 3,39 (132,7), *HIL Mt 16,11 (58,3); Vg Sap 18:1. Cf. HI ep 29,6,1 (240,5) scito teraphim ab Aquila μορφώματα interpretari, quas nos ‘figuras’ siue ‘figurationes’ possumus dicere. 40 PsAth. hae 4 (509C). 34 35

170

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

they also omit the entire middle section of the phrase and adapt the grammar of the final part of it. Fortunatianus’s use of abominatio to translate βδέλυγμα comes from an allusion to Mt 24:15, which itself draws βδέλυγμα from Dn 9:27. Mt 24:15 reads: Ὅταν οὖν ἴδητε τὸ βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως τὸ ῥηθὲν διὰ Δανιὴλ τοῦ προφήτου ἑστὸς ἐν τόπῳ ἁγίῳ. The oldest Latin version of τὸ βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως as translated from Mt 24:15 seems to have been abominationem uastationis, as attested by VL 2, Cyprian, and Tyconius.41 This contrasts with the earliest witnesses to the same phrase as translated directly from Greek Dn 9, ex(s)ecratio uastation-.42 Within Dn 9 Fortunatianus’s use of abominatio is part of an early trend away from the primitive ex(s)ecratio, a change made permanent by the use of abominatio in the Vg.43 Let us consider one last, noteworthy translation: πρεσβύτεροι | presbyteri in allusion to Sus. It is noteworthy for its agreement with Cyprian and Lucifer as well as VL 176 and VL 177 as witnesses to Sus, even though generally the VL translation senior is more common for πρεσβύτερος.44 To find presbyteri in Fortunatianus’s allusion to Sus adds another piece of evidence to the case for the basic stability of this biblical chapter, which, despite some variations among witnesses, represents the transmission of a single translation. 7. Conclusion This survey of minor witnesses to VL Sus-Dn-Bel has confirmed our knowledge of the early transition from LXXo’ to LXXθ’ in the Latin church. The Letter of Barnabas reinforces the early dating of the transition, which was certainly underway by the first half of the 3rd c. Even so, Victorinus’s material reminds us that LXXo’ readings sometimes survived many more decades. It seems that he knew Hexaplaric Dn or a Hexaplaric-influenced text. Add to this his LXXθ’ readings, and the complexity of the transmission of Greek Dn is clear, even before taking up the question of whether or not Victorinus knew a Latin translation of Dn. In any case, his citations are unique among those extant for VL Dn. They resemble Cyprian’s material only insofar as 1) both Fathers write citations that mix LXXθ’ and LXXo’, and 2) they each have at least one citation that follows LXXθ’. One need not posit the existence of another, European Latin translation of Dn to explain Victorinus’s textual peculiarities, for he may well have translated from the Greek himself. CY Fo 11 (202,35), TY reg 1 (5,24). For the use of this phrase within the Adversus Iudaeos attributed to Tertullian, and the Pseudo-Cyprianic De pascha computus, see p. 97. 43 Other early witness to abominatio include: Dn 9:27 in VL 175, VL 176, IR 5,25,4 (322,99), and HI chr (161,20). 44 See the treatment for Cyprian, p. 148; for Lucifer, p. 219. 41 42



Minor witnesses to VL Daniel 171

Some years later Lactantius, like so many other Fathers, cites Dn 7:13-14. His numerous citations of this passage reflect his chronological position between Cyprian and Lucifer, for there is a phrase that he cites sometimes according to the one, elsewhere according to the other. Firmicus’s citations only serve to show the continuing circulation of some of Cyprian’s. Finally, Fortunatianus reveals by a short, literal, LXXθ’-based citation that he knows a Theodotionic translation of VL Dn (and perhaps Sus) that circulated more widely and reached him in North Italy of the mid4th c. In two instances his text seems to resemble Greek Q or one of the minuscules in its group, and it also bears resemblance to a Greek citation by Pseudo-Athanasius. These six minor witnesses to VL Sus-Dn-Bel contribute to our knowledge of its textual history during a period that spans from the book’s early development in North Africa to the long citations by Lucifer around the year 360.

Chapter 6 LUCIFER

1. Text-critical analysis Let us first note that Lucifer follows LXXθ’ and variants from that textual tradition. Therefore, unless otherwise noted, the tables in this chapter with a “Vorlage” column reproduce LXXθ’. 1.1. Relation to VL 176 The extant portions of VL 176 overlap with all of Lucifer’s direct citations of Sus-Dn, but much of the Sus material is fragmentary. A comparison of these witnesses makes it immediately apparent that they derive from a common stemma codicum; they are not independent translations. The general lack of the witness of intermediaries, however, inhibits one’s ability to determine the relation of Lucifer’s text to that of VL 176. Lactantius does have a substantial agreement with Lucifer and VL 176 at Dn 7:14,1 but we lack the quantity of citations by Lactantius that would allow us to elaborate a theory explaining which textual layers are common to all three witnesses. Unfortunately, VL 175 and VL 177 are lacking where VL 176 agrees with Lucifer, though VL 177 does overlap elsewhere with one of Lucifer’s allusions to Dn. a. Inner-Latin corruption Our starting point will be the dozens of disagreements between Lucifer and VL 176. The textual corruption that each of these Latin witnesses exhibits must be taken into account. It serves as a caution against basing any theory on isolated agreements or disagreements outside of any pattern, especially disagreements of the sort that most often occur at the hands of Latin scribes. Consider these examples of inner-Latin corruption from Lucifer’s transmission.

1

See p. 168.

174

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

vs Sus 38-39

7:10

Vorlage

VL 176

Lucifer (corrupted)

ἐδράμομεν (ἐπεδράμομεν Q) ἐπʼ αὐτούς καὶ ἰδόντες συγγινομένους (αὐτοὺς)

(lost fragment)

adcurrimus ad eos et uidimus concurrentes2

εἷλκεν

ducebat

lucebat

VL 176, likewise, has undergone inner-Latin corruption: Vorlage

Lucifer

VL 176 (corrupted)

7:3

διαφέροντα ἀλλήλων

altera alteram magnitudine antecedens

alter ad alteram magnitudinem ascendens3

7:4

ἐξήρθη ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς

surrexit a terra

surrexit altera

7:7

τοῖς ποσὶν αὐτοῦ

pedibus suis

pedibus uis

7:22

ἕως οὗ (om. οὗ A)

quoadusque

quod4

vs

b. Minuses and other departures from the Greek We have just presented clear cases of Latin textual corruption, but there must have also been changes more difficult to detect, such as the omission or addition of verbal prefixes. Such changes surely account for some, but not all, of the differences between the two witnesses. We turn next to these differences. Besides the corruptions just shown, each of the witnesses exhibits instances in which it follows an extant Greek text, whereas the other witnesses departs from it. First, consider the more numerous instances in which VL 176 follows the Greek but Lucifer does not. Notice that in each instance Lucifer’s text has a minus. The first three examples come from Sus 20 where Lucifer may have intervened with his fa2 3

256.

For restored pairing συγγινομένους | concumbentes see p. 217. “Procul dubio haec versio orta est ex: ‘altera alteram magnitudine antecedens’;” Dold, Bruchstücke,

4 Cf. this manuscript’s readings of quoadusque | ἕως οὗ at Dn 4:25 (Vg 4:22), 4:33 (Vg 4:30), 5:21, 7:4, and 8:11. VL 176 also has quoadusque for ἕως ὅτου at Dn 7:9, ἕως at 7:11, and μέχρις οὗ at 11:36 (with VL 175).



Lucifer 175

vorite rhetorical device, asyndeton,5 rather than citing his manuscript verbatim: ostia uiridiarii clausa sunt, nemo nos uidet, in concupiscentia tui sumus. Vorlage

VL 176, with Greek

Lucifer

Sus 20

ἰδοὺ αἱ θύραι

ecce ostia

× ostia6

Sus 20

καὶ οὐδείς

et nemo

× nemo

Sus 20

καὶ ἐν ἐπιθυμίᾳ

et in concupiscentia

× in concupiscentia

Sus 36

δύο παιδισκῶν

duabus puellis

× puellis

Sus 41

κατέκριναν αὐτήν

eam

damnauerunt ×

καὶ ἀνακρινῶ αὐτούς. ὡς δὲ διεχωρίσθησαν εἷς ἀπὸ τοῦ ἑνός

et interrogabo eos. uarati sunt ab inuicem

×

ἀπέκτειναν αὐτούς

occiderunt eos

occiderunt ×

7:3

ἀνέβαινον

ascenderunt

×

7:4

πτερὰ αὐτῇ (αὐτῆς codd) ὡσεὶ ἀετοῦ· ἐθεώρουν ἕως οὗ ἐξετίλη τὰ πτερὰ αὐτῆς

pinnæ eius ut aquilæ pinnae eius × uidebam quoadusquæ euulsæ sunt pinnæ eius

7:18

ἕως αἰῶνος τῶν αἰώνων (ἕως αἰῶνος καὶ ἕως αἰῶνος τοῦ αἰῶνος 534)

n saeculum et saeculum

in saeculum ×

7:24

καὶ τὰ δέκα

et decim

× decem

7:24

βασιλεῖς

reges

×

vs

Sus 51-52

Sus 62

5 Hartel refers to this rhetorical device throughout his introduction, accusing Lucifer of “immoderatus asyndeti amor”; introduction to Lucifer of Cagliari, Opuscula (CSEL 14; Vindobonae 1886) I-XXXXII, V; cf. indices to ibidem 334-378, 354; cf. Diercks, introduction to Lucifer of Cagliari, Opera, LXXVI; cf. Kauhanen, Lucifer of Cagliari, 315-316, 344. 6 N.B. ostia begins Lucifer’s citation, so ecce could have been in his text but omitted for literary reasons.

176

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

Vorlage

VL 176, with Greek

7:27

ἡ βασιλεία αὐτοῦ βασιλεία αἰώνιος

regnum enum regnum eius × sempiternum sempiternum

7:27

πᾶσαι αἱ ἀρχαί

omnes pote

vs

Lucifer

omnes ×

Now consider the opposite cases, in which Lucifer follows the Greek but VL 176 does not. vs

Vorlage

Lucifer, with Greek

VL 176

Sus 60

τῷ θεῷ

Deum

uiuum

7:5

σάρκας πολλάς

carnes multas

carnem multa

7:8

× (ὀφθαλμοί)

× (oculi)

duo (oculi)

7:19

οἱ ὄνυχες αὐτοῦ

ungues eius

ungues ×

7:24

ἀναστήσεται

exsurget

surgit

7:25

λαλήσει

loquetur

loquitur

7:26

μεταστήσουσι

transferet7

transfert

c. Shared liberties in translation Although these two witnesses exhibit shared departures from the Greek text, most of which are minor, there are nevertheless some departures which a fastidious corrector would have remedied if he were to adapt the text literally to the Greek.

7 Both Lucifer and VL 176 disagree with the plural number of the Greek, but Lucifer does agree with the future tense.



Lucifer 177

vs Sus 61-62

Vorlage

Lucifer & VL 176

ἐποίησαν αὐτοῖς ὃν τρόπον fecerunt illis (eis 176) quemadἐπονηρεύσαντο τῷ πλησίον, ποιῆσαι modum ipsi male proximo facere κατὰ τὸν νόμον Μωυσῆ uoluerunt secundum legem Moysi8

7:10

κριτήριον ἐκάθισε

in iudicium sedit

7:11

εἰς καῦσιν πυρός

ut conburatur

7:18

ὑψίστου

altissimi Dei

7:20

τοῦ ἑτέρου

altero cornu

7:22

ὑψίστου

altissimi Dei

7:25

τὸν ὕψιστον… ὑψίστου

altissimum Deum… altissimi Dei

7:26

μεταστήσουσι

transfer(e)t9

7:27

ὑψίστου

altissimi Dei

This shows that neither of the witnesses underwent a thoroughgoing, literal adaptation to a known Greek text after they diverged from their common ancestor. d. Lucifer’s more ancient readings Even though the reviser left the above examples untouched, there is nonetheless reason to believe that VL 176 did undergo a revision based on a Greek text. The case for Lucifer being generally the more primitive text, rather than the corruption of a text like VL 176, relies on Lucifer’s shared readings with Tertullian and Cyprian as well as Greek 541, and one reading close to Justin Martyr. It also relies on the lexical analysis of the readings in disagreement. Here follows the explanation of all these phenomena. In two or three instances Lucifer agrees with Greek 541, of the Greek Q group, against VL 176. It has already been noted that, in the section on Cyprian’s agreements with Greek witnesses, his text agreed especially with Greek Q and two miVL 176 has lacunae in these verses. Lucifer reads transferet and VL 176 transfert. They are both singular verbs, which depart from the Greek plural. 8 9

178

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

nuscules associated with it, Greek 230 and Greek 541. Moreover, this was especially the case in Sus and Bel. Even Tertullian showed a couple of such agreements, with Greek Q and Greek 230. Those Greek agreements with Carthaginian Fathers add relevance to the ones in the following table, which otherwise might be passed over as coincidental. vs

Greek 541

Lucifer

VL 176

LXXθ’

Sus 30

οἱ γονεῖς αὐτῆς ××× (with Greek 62)

parentes eius ×××

parentes eius et filii eius

οἱ γονεῖς αὐτῆς καὶ τὰ τέκνα αὐτῆς

Sus 35

ἔβλεψεν

aspexit10

respexit

ἀνέβλεψεν

τὰ τέσσαρα τὰ μεγάλα

bestiae quattuor magnae

bestiæ quattuor 11

τὰ τέσσαρα × (τὰ μεγάλα τὰ τέσσαρα codd)

7:17

Here we see a clear agreement between Greek 541 and Lucifer at Sus 30, a possible agreement at Sus 35, and another clear one at Dn 7:17. Consider this further case, as displayed in the following table, of continuity from Tertullian to Cyprian to Lucifer. Lucifer, against VL 176, matches the old African Latin reading of this passage from Dn 7:13, one that later survived only in Fathers known to cite Cyprian. It is not only the Latin here that is old but also the Greek, for the closest equivalent is Justin Martyr. One possible explanation for the text of VL 176 being different from the oldest Latin and Greek texts and in accord with younger Greek texts is that it resulted from a scribe’s changing a text such as Lucifer’s to match a Greek manuscript. θ’

Justin Martyr

TE; [TE] Jud; CY; LUC

LXX

ἐρχόμενος καὶ ἦλθεν

ueniens × uenit

ἐρχόμενος καί ×

VL 176 ueniens et ×

Although this reading may derive from ἔβλεψεν, it could also result from ἀνέβλεψεν. The reconstruction of the minus is rather reliable, for the damage to the manuscript, at the edge of a hole avoided by the scribe, results in only about six missing characters. They are reconstructed as bestiæ quattuor gna. I.e. there was not space to add the extra five characters of *magnæ. For an image of the other side (verso) of the same folio, see Dold, Propheten-Fragmente, first plate following p. 88. 10 11



Lucifer 179

e. Lexical disagreements Lucifer and VL 176, despite being so close in general, do exhibit a substantial number of lexical differences. A couple of them, paradisus in Sus 20. 36, and nuntius in Sus 55 manifest a closer association to the Greek. Here follow their principal lexical disagreements. Vorlage

Lucifer

VL 176

παράδεισος

uiridiarium

paradisus

Sus 21

εἰ δὲ μή

alioquin

si cominus

Sus 28

συνέρχομαι

conuenio

uenio

Sus 28

θανατόω

mortifico

morte adficio

Sus 30

σφόδρα

nimium

ualde

Sus 32

ἐμπίμπλημι

saturo

satio

Sus 35

κλαίω

lacrimor

fleo

Sus 36

εἰσέρχομαι

intro

introeo

Sus 39

ἠδυνήθημεν ἐγκρατεῖς potuimus adprehendere prehen γενέσθαι

Sus 43

ὧν

horum, quae

sor

Sus 51

ἀπʼ ἀλλήλων

ab alterutro

ab 12

Sus 54

ὁμιλέω

tracto

con or con or con

Sus 55

φάσις

praeceptum

tius

Sus 61

αὐτός

ille

is

vs Sus 20. 36

12 Although the entire second word is illegible, the text is again legible beginning with the following word. VL 176 read ab inuicem at Sus 13 and Sus 52, for which Lucifer, unfortunately, offers no equivalent. Dold’s judgment for Sus 51 in the edition of VL 176 is surely based not only on those instances but also on the space concerned and the length of inuicem versus alterutro.

180

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

f. Comparative lexical analysis Let us now examine this lexical evidence bearing on the question of precedence between Lucifer and VL 176. The latter lies closer to its Greek Vorlage in paradisus and nuntius than does Lucifer with uiridiarium and praeceptum. The same goes for many instances previously shown in a separate table, in which VL 176 has a reading corresponding to the Greek but Lucifer a minus. When Lucifer is closer to the Greek it is almost always due to morphological changes in VL 176, which may well have taken place after translation and revision, in the Latin transmission. The only time that this is not the case is in VL 176’s plus of (Deum) uiuum. Why is VL 176 closer to the Greek in so many instances? Is Lucifer’s text derived from one similar to VL 176? I maintain, rather, that the opposite holds true: Lucifer’s text tends to be closer to the original than VL 176, this latter depending on an ancestor revised according to a Greek text. Besides the hints already presented, which pointed towards Lucifer’s priority over VL 176, his vocabulary bolsters the argument. Lucifer presents more vocabulary consistent with Tertullian’s writings and the passion account of Perpetua and Felicity, which dates to the first decade of the 3rd c., than does VL 176. The most illustrative difference, due to the rarity of Lucifer’s word, is between his παράδεισος | uiridiarium and VL 176’s paradisus. Despite its rarity, uiridiarium appears thrice in the saints’ passion account.13 VL 176 likely represents the adaptation of the Latin text to more literally match the Greek. Tracto, as used in Lucifer’s Sus 54, also constitutes a rarity. The VL 176 reading is only partially legible, with the most probably possibilities being con, con, and con. Here Daniel asks one of the depraved elders under which tree he saw Susanna and her alleged lover ὁμιλοῦντες | tractantes, according to Lucifer. The verb tracto per se is not rare, but its use without an object and outside the homiletic context is so indeed. It was the most primitive verb used in a technical sense to designate Christian exegetical preaching.14 This helps to establish its early association with ὁμιλέω, but preaching here is not at issue. We find a similar use of the verb outside of the context of scriptural exposition, in Tertullian’s allusion to Act 24:26 in De fuga in persecutione.15 The Greek verse 13 A-SS Per 11,5 (144,9), 11,7 (144,13), 13,4 (150,8). The only other VL reading of uirid(i)arium that has come to light is in VL 94 Ecl 2:5. Cf. W. Thiele (ed.), Sap, 221, n. 1. 14 C. Mohrmann, “Praedicare – Tractare – Sermo. Essai sur la terminologie de la prédication paléochrétinne,” MD 39 (1954) 97-107, 104-105 = “Praedicare – Tractare – Sermo,” Étude sur le Latin des Chrétiens. II. Latin Chrétien et Médiéval (SeL 87; Roma 1961) 63-72, 70. 15 Act 24:26 ἅμα καὶ ἐλπίζων [ὁ Φῆλιξ] ὅτι χρήματα δοθήσεται αὐτῷ ὑπὸ τοῦ Παύλου· διὸ καὶ πυκνότερον αὐτὸν μεταπεμπόμενος ὡμίλει αὐτῷ. TE fu 12,9 (38,68) : Paulus quidem, cum Felix praeses pecunias accepturum se pro eo a discipulis sperasset, de quo et ipse in secreto tractauit cum ipso. Cf. pp. 217-218. Cf. also H. Hoppe, Beiträge zur Sprache und Kritik Tertullians (SVSL 14; Lund 1932) 109-110.



Lucifer 181

indicates that greedy Felix would converse (ὁμιλέω) with Paul. Tertullian alludes to the passage rather than citing it, using tracto as the equivalent to ὁμιλέω. The fact that Tertullian is merely alluding to the passage helps to confirm that he is not making a mechanical, stilted translation by pairing ὁμιλέω | tracto. Rather, as one free to use a wide range of vocabulary even when he is directly citing, here he uses a word that presumably his readers will not struggle to understand. That is to say, tracto in this context means “to converse” for Tertullian and his intended readership. The pairing ὁμιλέω | tracto can be found twice in VL 3’s text of Lc 24:14-15 in the story of the road to Emmaus. Here the immediate context is that of a conversation between two mourning friends; it is Jesus, not the mourners before his arrival, who later interrupts their conversation in order to preach exegetically. For the mourning disciples, as in the example from Tertullian, tracto means “to converse.” Although this chapter is well-attested in VL manuscripts, only VL 3 reads tracto, a manuscript that stands out for its high number of Africanisms.16 After uiridiarium and tracto, the case for Lucifer’s early African vocabulary is less clear-cut. There are several pairings that are consistent with this hypothesis, though they more easily admit of alternate explanations than the two words just treated. Lucifer attests the pair κλαίω | lacrimor against VL 176’s fleo, even though Lucifer’s own text reads fleo at Sus 33. Tertullian and the contemporary African Passio attest lacrimor 6x17 (as well as a handful of instances of fleo in Tertullian), but this verb is altogether absent in Cyprian and contemporary Pseudo-Cyprianic works. Furthermore, when Cyprian attests fleo in other biblical passages lacrimor tends to be absent from the variants.18 If there were a widespread tendency to adapt this verb to lacrimor, one would expect to find evidence for it in these passages. The use of lacrimor, therefore, is at least consistent with the proposed early African character of Lucifer’s vocabulary in Sus-Dn. A similar case can be made for θανατόω | mortifico, where VL 176 has morte afficio, though the case is even less clear-cut than the ones above. Tertullian uses mortifico 14x, both in biblical citations and in prose.19 Indeed, mortifico is first attested Cf. Prv 24:8, where Ambrose’s De officiis pairs λογίζομαι | tracto in citing the verse: AM off 1,25,117 (42,20) Sapientes non declinant de ore Domini sed tractant (λογίζονται) in confessionibus suis. 17 TE ap 9,4 (102); TE pae 9,4 (180,11); TE car 9,7 (254,39); Act 21:13 in TE fu 6,9 (28,53) (For fleo in Tertullian’s Act 21:13, see TE sco 15,5,21 [1097].); A-SS Per 5,5 (120,11); A-SS Per 7,10 (130,26). 18 I have not checked all passages in which Cyprian attests fleo, but I offer the following ones. They attest variation away from his use of fleo, but not to lacrimor. See 1 Cor 7:30 in CY te 3,11 (101,33); Apc 5:4 in CY te 2,11 (44,28); Apc 5:5 in CY te 2,11 (44,30); and Apc 18:9 in CY te 3,34 (129,15). 19 E.g. θανατόω | mortifico at Mt 10:21 in TE sco 9,4 (1084); ἀποθνῄσκω | mortifico at Rom 8:13 in TE res 46,8 (983) and at Dt 32:39 in TE fu 3,1 (22,9) and *TE Marc 2,14,1 (92,1). One finds ἀποθνῄσκω in allusion to 1 Cor 15:22 in *TE Marc 5,9,5 (196,33), though he uses ἀποθνῄσκω | morior in his direct quotation of the verse in TE res 48,9 (988). In allusion to νεκρόω | mortifico of Col 3:5 in *TE pud 17,18 (244,78). Prose examples of mortifico include TE res 37,5 (970) and TE mon 13,3 (192,24). 16

182

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

by Tertullian, whereas morte afficio is classical but not unknown to Tertullian20 and other Christian authors. Cyprian uses mortifico just twice, and both of these are in biblical citations. In other words the two Cyprianic instances may well have survived from prior decades, whereas more generally the word is avoided in Cyprian and his contemporary pseudonymous works. Consider mortifico | θανατόω in Rm 8:36, for which attestation is especially rich. This New Testament verse cites Ps 43:23 (Vg 43:22). In the following table certain high-value witnesses have been underlined within the chronologically ordered lists. θανατόω

Latin witnesses to θανατόω in Rm 8:36

mortifico

VL 65; VL 76; VL 77; VL 78; TE sco 13,4 (1094); HIL Ps 118 heth 12 (78,4); Vg; HI ep 108,19,7 (334,12); HI ep 127,6,2 (150,13); HI ep 130,7,5 (184,4); HI Eph 3 (548D); RUF Rm 7,9 (599,3); RUF Rm 7,9 (601,43); AU passim21; PS-AU spe 28 (439,11); LEO s 36,2 (197,55); PEL Rm 8,36 (70,22); PROS Coll 15,3 (257C); PROS voc 1,24 (684A); PROS voc 2,15 (702C); AN Ver s 12,4 (82); AN Ver s 13,3 (84)

morte / morti afficio VL 75; τ56; LUC mor 6 (280,63); AMst Rm 8,36 (296,16); IR 2,22,2 (216,46); RUF Nm 24,1 (225,13); RUF Rm 1,1 (40,65); AU s 335,1 (1470); AU s 335,2 (1471); PS-AU spe 28 (439,11) Var; GR-I Ct 3,28 (236,8); LEO ep 15,10 occido

CY Fo 6 (194,11); CY te 3,18 (113,9); LUC Ath 5 (9,4)

morti trado

AM Ps 118,7,6 (130,10)

× afficio

AU mor 1,14 (16,13); AU mor 1,15 (17,14); AU re 1,7,2 (18,18); VER cant 6,3 (127,28)

morte damno

PS-AU s Cai I,64,3 (83b)

interficio

NO: [CY] ep 31,4 (155,77)

He uses affici morte within his prose at TE an 5,6 (787). AU corr 15 (236,10); AU do 4,43 (150,156); AU ep 145,6 (271,7); AU gr 16 (142,15); AU gr 34 (154,3); AU pat 15 (680,7); AU Ps 43,1,10 (481); AU s 158,8 (866); AU s 158,9 (867); AU s 297,6 (1362); AU s Dol 13,1 (288,8 = 90,8); AU s 299F (24,94 and 24,100); AU s 299F (24,94); AU s 299F (24,100); [MAX] s 89 (711A) = Var AU s 335,1 (1470). Cf. θανατόω | occido at Ps 43:22 in AU Ps 9,13,5 (65). 20 21



Lucifer 183

Here we see an initial pairing of mortifico | θανατόω by Tertullian, which will eventually become the dominant reading, espoused by Augustine and Jerome and enshrined in the Vg. It is noteworthy, however, that mortifico by no means continued unchallenged from Tertullian to the Vg. Rather, Cyprian and Lucifer opt for occido, and Novatian for interficio.22 Morte / morti afficio seems to have been a prominent European reading. The fact that Rm 8:36 cites Ps 43:23 surely added to the variation of the passage, for the author or scribe could always insert into Rm the verb that he remembered from his recitation of the Psalter. Lucifer, who is careful in his citations, attests morte afficio in Rm 8:36 but mortifico in Ps 43:23,23 which goes to show that the Old and New Testament readings could diverge within a single author’s scriptures. The persistence of mortifico at Ps 43:23, though not monolithic, likely contributed to its resurgence in Rm 8:36. Let us bring this data from Rm 8:36 to bear on the problem at hand, that is, the precedence of Lucifer’s mortifico or VL 176’s morte afficio. We see there a pattern which fits well with the other data supporting the precedence of Lucifer over VL 176. Namely, a word favored by Tertullian quickly gave way to synonyms but, nevertheless, is attested by Lucifer. Although a case could also be made for the precedence of morte afficio, Lucifer’s mortifico is consistent with the early African milieu to which many clues lead together.24 Lucifer’s ἀπʼ ἀλλήλων | ab alterutro against VL 176’s ab is a lexical contrast dependent on Dold’s reconstruction of inuicem.25 Tertullian does not use ab inuicem; Cyprian is the first datable author to use or cite it. Alteruter, however, does appear in Tertullian, and is much more common in his corpus than in the preceding literature. Indeed, ab alterutro, alongside ex / de alterutro, also occurs in Tertullian, though alterutro immediately preceded by any of the three prepositions occurs just twice before him in Latin literature.26 Ab / ex / de alterutro do not appear in Cyprianic literature, and only for the verse at hand, Sus 51, do any of them occur in Lucifer. As with the previously treated vocabulary, this evidence is consistent with, though not itself conclusive for, an early African origin of Lucifer’s text, which was later adapted to ab inuicem in VL 176. 22 CY te 3,18 (113,9) does have a variant reading of mortifico in the apparatus, which Hartel had given in his critical text. See Cyprian of Carthage, Opera Omnia. Tomus I (ed. W. von Hartel) (CSEL 3; Vindobonae 1868) 133. 23 LUC mor 11 (291,86). 24 For another example of an apparently early African pairing of θανατόω | mortifico, which later gave way to morte afficio, see Lc 21:16. Here VL 2 reads mortifico against VL codd and Vg morte afficio. 25 See p. 179, n. 12. 26 Tertullian pens ab alterutro at TE Pra 9,1 (162,1). The occurrence of ab alterutro prior to Tertullian is at Frontin. aq 25,1 (26). Tertullian uses ex alterutro at TE ap 1 (,30) and TE Pra 10,2 (164,4), as well as de alterutro at TE mon 10,5 (176,33). The only precedent for these prior to Tertullian is ex alterutro at Scrib. Larg. 142 (72,19).

184

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

At Sus 21 Lucifer pairs alioquin | εἰ δὲ μή against VL 176 si cominus, the latter being equal to si quominus or si quo minus. VL texts in general attest great variation in rendering εἰ δὲ μή, as can be seen especially in the Gospels.27 Tertullian attests both alioquin and si quominus, this latter even as a biblical translation of εἰ δὲ μή.28 Although it is not in doubt that VL 176’s εἰ δὲ μή | si quominus was used in Christian Latin from earliest times, alioquin can make a similar claim since it appears dozens of times in Tertullian’s corpus. As with ab / ex / de alterutro, Lucifer’s alioquin does not appear in the Cyprianic corpus at all.29 Lucifer’s own corpus, moreover, does not attest si quominus. It is impossible to say which reading is closer to the original. Although Lucifer’s alioquin is consistent with the working theory that his text is more primitive than that of VL 176, the latter’s si quominus is attested in Tertullian and gospel manuscripts such as VL 1 and VL 2, against later manuscript witnesses to alioquin. Lucifer’s total exclusion of si quominus suggests a trend to expunge it, as in Mt 6:1 and 9:17, where only the pre-Cyprianic VL 1 has this reading. So, on the one hand, it is possible that alioquin was the primitive reading, a word that already by Cyprian’s time was avoided and therefore to be changed. On the other hand, the equally ancient si quominus may have been the original reading, changed to synonymous phrases such as alioquin all throughout Lucifer’s Bible. Lucifer attests φάσις | praeceptum against VL 176’s reconstructed tius.30 Although φάσις occurs infrequently in the Bible, praeceptum is common for Christian Latin literature in general, including Tertullian’s frequent use. As with the difference between uiridiarium and paradisus, VL 176’s nuntius appears to adapt the text to more closely mirror the Greek. There are a couple of differences between Lucifer and VL 176 that appear to go against the case for Lucifer’s primitive text. Lucifer’s ἕως οὗ | quoadusque at Dn 7:22 attests a word absent from Tertullian and the Passio. It must have found use already in the pre-Cyprianic VL, however, for the pairing ἕως οὗ | quoadusque appears in VL 1 at Mt 13:33.31 Although VL 176 overlaps with all of Lucifer’s Sus-Dn, VL 177 has no direct overlap whatsoever. Nevertheless, where Lucifer once alludes to the caminus of Dn 3, this contrasts with VL 177’s consistent furnax (sic).32 We saw above that TertulSee Mt 6:1, 9:17; Lc 5:36. 37, 10:6, 13:9, 14:32; Jo 14:2. 11. The manuscripts that stand out for reading si quominus against the other manuscripts are: VL 1, VL 2, VL 5, VL 6. 28 Jo 14:11 in TE Pra 24,8 (216,53). Cf. the same pairing at Apc 2:5 in PS-CY Nov 13 (147,28). 29 An apparent exception is PS-CY cent 19 (80,170), which does read alioquin. This work, however, is probably much later than Cyprian. This very occurrence, out of place in the Cyprianic corpus of the mid-3rd c., only bolsters the case for its late character. 30 Φάσις also occurs at Act 21:31, preceded by ἀνέβη, where the European VL 50 pairs φάσις | nuntius. The reading disagrees with VL 5, VL 51, and Vg: nuntiatum est (ἀνέβη φάσις). 31 Cf. the same pairing, for example, in VL 2 at Mt 17:9 and 18:34. 32 The allusion to Dn 3 caminus occurs at *LUC mor 2 (269,58). Furnax occurs in VL 177 at Dn 3:17. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 46. 47. 48. 49 (2x). 27



Lucifer 185

lian also consistently uses fornax and Cyprian caminus, which suggests that VL 177 could be more primitive than Lucifer here. Even so, undue weight should not be given to Lucifer’s single allusion, much less valuable than a direct quotation. g. Conclusion Let us summarize the relationship between Lucifer and VL 176. The two witnesses represent different branches of a textual tradition going back to a single, initial translation. This proto-translation was probably made in northern Africa around the turn of the 3rd c. This explains, for example, the shared reading of anticipo in the sense of “come before, arrive.”33 Lucifer attests even more such vocabulary, for instance uiridiarium and a particular use of tracto. Furthermore, he has a textual agreement with Tertullian and Cyprian against VL 176 as well as agreements with Greek 541 of the Greek Q group, which further bolsters the case for his more primitive text. At some unknown point, which may have been already in early- to mid-3rd-c. Africa but could have been much later and in Europe, an ancestor of VL 176 was partially corrected according to a Greek manuscript. The most paradigmatic change here is from Lucifer’s more primitive uiridiarium to VL 176’s consistent paradisus. At this point some of the minuses represented in Lucifer would have been filled in as well. Finally, each of these textual branches suffered corruption in its own textual transmission. During this period, for example, the second ‘s’ was lost in the previously shared reading of Dn 7:7 pedibus suis (τοῖς ποσὶν αὐτοῦ), so that VL 176 reads pedibus uis.34 1.2. Relation to other VL witnesses This table contains basic information on each witness referenced in the subsequent “table of agreements.” First a manuscript is listed, followed by authors’ sigla in alphabetical order. Even though Lucifer provides more text than our Cyprianic sources this table is significantly shorter than theirs. His selection of extended texts from just two chapters rather than the repetition of the book’s most-cited passages accounts for the shorter list and the near-absence of liturgical witnesses. Lucifer’s texts, the first extended European ones considered, still contain significant overlap with North African sources. See p. 212. I have intentionally avoided using an example from Lucifer, such as his lucebat against VL 176’s better reading of εἷλκεν | ducebat at Dn 7:10. Since I maintain that VL 176 was revised according to a Greek text, corruptions such as this could have occurred early on and been common to both branches of the tradition but expunged on the VL 176 side by using the Greek. 33 34

186

sigla

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

author

work

VL 176

AM ep 7

Ambrose of Epistula 7 Milan

AM sp

date

region

Sus-Dn-Bel

early 9th c.

Saint Gall, Switzerland

Sus 1-64, Dn 1:1-9, 3:36-60, 4:20-8:17, 8:21-9:2, 9:6-7. 15-16, 9:2210:11. 16-21, 11:6-12:13, Bel 1-42

386-397

North Italy

Sus 43

De spiritu Sancto

381

Sus 44-45

AN s Et 8

anonymous

Sermo 8, found and edited by Raymond Étaix

Middle Ages?

South Italy?

Dn 7:2. 9-10

AN s Can 11

anonymous

Sermo 11, edited by Aline Canellis

late 4th c.?

North Italy?

Sus 49. 54

ANT-S

Sinai Antiphonary

10th c.

North Africa

Dn 3:26. 57, 7:9-10. 27

AU ci

Augustine of Hippo

412-426

North Africa

3:57, 7:13-28, 12:2-3. 13

De civitate Dei

AU leg

Contra adversarium 420 legis et prophetarum

7:13-14

AU s 343

Sermo 343

403-404

Sus 22-23. 49. 54. 58

AU tri

De Trinitate liber 2

411

7:9-10. 13-14



Lucifer 187

sigla

author

work

date

region

Sus-Dn-Bel

PS-AU alt

PseudoAugustine

Altercatio Ecclesiae et Synagogae

438 - late 5th c.

North Africa?35

Dn 7:13-14, 12:4

CHRO Mt

Chromatius of Aquileia

Tractatus in Matthaeum

397-408

North Italy

2:22, 7:9-10, 10:2

CHRY lap

John De reparatione Chrysostom lapsi

late 4th early 5th c.?

North Africa?36

4:24, 7:9-10. 13-15

CY te

Cyprian of Carthage

Ad Quirinum (Testimoniorum libri 3)

248-250

North Africa

Sus 1-3, Dn 2:31-35, 3:1618. 37-42, 6:23-27, 7:1314, 12:4

PS-CY Nov

PseudoCyprian

Ad Novatianum

253-257?

North Africa?

7:9-10

EVA-G

Evagrius Gallicus

Altercatio legis inter ca. 430 Simonem Iudaeum et Theophilum Christianum

Gaul

7:13-14

EUS-E h

Eusebius of Homiliae Emesa

4th-5th c.?

Gaul?

Sus 57, Dn 3:6, 7:2. 9

EUS-V ep

Eusebius of Epistulae 3 Vercelli

345-371

North Italy

Sus 57

FIR err

Iulius Firmicus Maternus Siculus

343-350

South Italy

2:31-35, 7:1314

35 36

De errore profanarum religionum

See p. 51, n. 8. Hall – Norris, “Chrysostom texts,” 165-166.

188

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

sigla

author

work

date

region

Sus-Dn-Bel

Hesychius of Salona: [AU] ep 198

Hesychius of Salona

Epistula 198

418-420

Balkans

7:11-13

HI Dn

Jerome of Stridon

Commentariorum in 407 Danielem

Palestine

passim

Commentariorum in 412-415 Hiezechielem

HI Ez

Sus 32, Dn 7:2, 12:2

HIL Ps

Hilary of Poitiers

Tractatus super Psalmos

ca. 365

Gaul

2:44, 7:9-10. 13-14

IR

Irenaeus of Lyons

Adversus haereses

3rd c.?; late 4th c.?

Gaul?

Sus 20. 52-53. 56, Dn 2:34, 2:41-45, 3:9192, 7:20-25. 27, 8:11-12. 23-25, 9:27, 12:3-4. 9-10. 13, Bel 5

LAC epit

314-321

Asia Minor

7:13-14

LAC in

L. Caecilius Epitome divinarum Firmianus institutionum Lactantius Divinarum institutionum

LUC Ath

Lucifer of Cagliari

LUC par

304-311

De Athanasio

357-358

De non parcendo in Deum delinquentibus

ca. 359

7:13-14

South Italy (but written in exile)

Sus 20-21. 22-23. 28-49. 51-62

7:1-27



Lucifer 189

sigla

author

work

date

region

Sus-Dn-Bel

NIC sp

Nicetas of Remesiana

De Spiritus Sancti potentia

after 380?

Balkans

Sus 42

PRIS tr

Priscillian of Avila

Tractatus

late 4th c.

Spain

7:2-7

RES-R

Roman Responsory

Middle Ages

South Italy

Sus 42-43, 3:17. 26. *3:51. 55-56. 78, 7:14, 12:1

RUF Bas

Rufinus of Aquileia

Homiliae S. Basilii

398-399

Italy

7:9-10

RUF Eus

Eusebii Historia Ecclesiastica

402-403

Italy

7:9-10. 13-14

RUF Rm

Origenis Commentarius in Epistulam ad Romanos

405-406

Italy

Sus 56, 3:86, 7:9-10, 9:5-7

RUF sy

Expositio symboli

400-402

Italy

7:13-14, 12:2

TE Marc

Tertullian Adversus Marcioof Carthage nem

207-211

North Africa

7:13-14

[TE] Jud 9-14

PseudoTertullian?

Adversus Iudaeos, 9-14

3rd c.?

North Africa

7:13-14

VICn Apc

Victorinus of Poetovium

Commentarius in Apocalypsin

before 304

Balkans

2:38-40, 7:18, *9:26-27

VIC-V

Victor of Vita

Historia persecutionis Africanae provinciae

484

Africa

Sus 42

190

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

sigla

author

work

date

region

Sus-Dn-Bel

PS-VIG tri 3

PseudoVigilius of Thapsus

De trinitate, liber 3

late 4th early 5th c.

Spain

7:13-14

PS-VIG Var

PseudoVigilius of Thapsus

Contra Varimadum Arianum

445-480

North Africa

Sus 42-43, 3:38-40. 91-92, 7:9. 13

The following table illustrates the continuation of Lucifer’s readings within the VL tradition. Note that the pairing of προσηνέχθη αὐτῷ | oblatus est ei at 7:13 differs from Ziegler – Munnich, who align Lucifer’s text with προσήχθη αὐτῷ.37 Vorlage

Lucifer

agreements

witnesses

Sus 20

οὐδεὶς θεωρεῖ ἡμᾶς

nemo nos uidet

nemo nos uidet

VL 176; IR 4,26,3 (720,66)

Sus 21

εἰ δὲ μή

alioquin

alioquin

HI Dn com 4 (946,747)

Sus 21

ἐξαπέστειλας

dimisisti

dimisisti

VL 176

dimiseris

HI Dn com 4 (946,747)

omnis synagoga

*HI Dn com 4 (949,821)38

vs

Sus 41

× ἡ συναγωγή

omnis synagoga

See p. 207 of the present work. Note that VL 176 has not been included here even though it figures in the Greek edition’s apparatus, with the caveat vid(etur). In fact, four fifths of the line in which *omnis could occur is reconstructed by the editor of the manuscript; the legible portion ends before *omnis and continues for a few more words beyond it. 37 38



Lucifer 191

Vorlage

Lucifer

agreements

witnesses

Sus 42

ὁ τῶν κρυπτῶν γνώστης

qui occultorum cognitor es

qui occultorum cognitor es

NIC sp 10 (27,24); PSVIG Var 1,40 (52); VIC-V 2,84 (61,19);

Sus 43

σὺ ἐπίστασαι ὅτι ψευδῆ μου κατεμαρτύρησαν

tu scis quoniam falsum testimonium aduersum me (dixerunt)

tu scis (quia) falsum testimonium aduersum me (dicunt)

AM ep 7,33 (60,340)

tu scis quoniam falsum testimonium (hi dicunt aduersum me)

PS-VIG Var 1,40 (52)

vs

Sus 45

καὶ ἀπαγομένης αὐτῆς ἀπολέσθαι ἐξήγειρεν ὁ θεὸς τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον παιδαρίου νεωτέρου, ᾧ ὄνομα

cum duceretur ut periret excitauit (Deus) spiritum sanctum pueri adulescentis cui nomen

cum duceretur ut periret et (Var om. et) excitauit (Dominus) spiritum sanctum pueri adulescentis cui nomen

AM sp 3,3940 (166)

Sus 49

ἀναστρέψατε εἰς τὸ κριτήριον

redite in iudicium

redite in iudicium

AN s Can 11 (1857); AU s 343,1 (29,38)

Sus 52

πεπαλαιωμένε ἡμερῶν κακῶν, νῦν ἥκασιν αἱ ἁμαρτίαι σου ἃς ἐποίεις τὸ πρότερον

inueterate dierum malorum nunc aduenerunt peccata tua quae (ante faciebas)

inueterate dierum malorum nunc aduenerunt peccata tua quae (faciebas antea)

IR 4,26,3 (720,71)

192

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

Vorlage

Lucifer

agreements

witnesses

κρίνων κρίσεις ἀδίκους καὶ τοὺς μὲν ἀθῴους

iudicans iudicia iniusta; et innocentes quidem damnabas, (dimittebas uero nocentes), dicente Domino, “Innocentem et iustum non occides”

IR 4,26,3 (722,73)

κατακρίνων, ἀπολύων δὲ τοὺς αἰτίους, λέγοντος τοῦ κυρίου Ἀθῷον καὶ δίκαιον οὐκ ἀποκτενεῖς

iudicans iudicia iniusta; et innocentes quidem damnabas, (nocentes autem dimittebas), dicente Domino, “Innocentem et iustum non occides”

Sus 54

ὑπὸ σχῖνον

sub lentisco

sub lentisco

VL 176vid; AN s Can 11 (1857); AU s 343,1 (29,45)

Sus 56

σπέρμα Χανααν καὶ οὐχ Ιουδα, τὸ κάλλος ἐξηπάτησέ σε, καὶ ἡ ἐπιθυμία διέστρεψε τὴν καρδίαν σου

semen Chanaan et non Iuda, species seduxit te et concupiscentia euertit cor tuum

semen Chanaan et non Iuda, species seduxit te et concupisentia euertit cor tuum

IR 4,26,3 (720,70); RUF Rm 4,2 (288,119)

Sus 57

φοβούμεναι ὡμίλουν ὑμῖν

timentes concumbebant uobiscum

timentes (…) concumbebant uobiscum

EUS-V ep 2,8 (108,185)

Sus 58

ὑπὸ πρῖνον

sub ilice

sub ilice

AU s 343,1 (29,46)

ἐθεώρουν καὶ ἰδοὺ οἱ τέσσαρες ἄνεμοι τοῦ οὐρανοῦ προσέβαλλον εἰς τὴν θάλασσαν τὴν μεγάλην

uidebam, et ecce quattuor uenti caeli inmittebant in mare magnum

uidebam, et ecce quattuor uenti caeli immittebant in mare magnum

VL 176; HI Ez 14 (715,1162)

vs Sus 53

7:2



Lucifer 193

Vorlage

Lucifer

agreements

witnesses

τὸ πρῶτον ὡσεὶ λέαινα, καὶ πτερὰ αὐτῇ (αὐτῆς codd) ὡσεὶ ἀετοῦ ἐθεώρουν ἕως οὗ ἐξετίλη τὰ πτερὰ αὐτῆς, καὶ ἐξήρθη ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς καὶ ἐπὶ ποδῶν ἀνθρώπου ἐστάθη, καὶ καρδία ἀνθρώπου ἐδόθη αὐτῇ

prima ut lea et pinnae eius ×

(et) prima (erat) ut lea et pinnae eius (ut aquilae)

PRIS tr 1 (9,6)

et surrexit a terra et super hominis pedes stetit, et cor hominis datum est ei

et surrexit a terra et sup(ra) hominis pedes stetit et cor hominis datum est ei

7:6

καὶ ἰδοὺ ἓτερον θηρίον ὡσεὶ πάρδαλις, καὶ αὐτῇ πτερὰ τέσσαρα πετεινοῦ ὑπεράνω αὐτῆς, καὶ τέσσαρες κεφαλαὶ τῷ θηρίῳ, καὶ ἐξουσία ἐδόθη αὐτῇ

et ecce alia bestia ut (leopardus), et (ei alae) quattuor uolucres39 super eam et quattuor capita bestiae, et potestas data est ei

et ecce alia bestia ut (pardus) et (alae ei) quattuor uolucres × × et quattuor capita bestiae, et potestas data est ei

PRIS tr 1 (9,11)

7:7

καὶ ἰδοὺ θηρίον τέταρτον φοβερὸν καὶ ἔκθαμβον καὶ ἰσχυρὸν περισσῶς, καὶ (om. A) οἱ ὀδόντες αὐτοῦ σιδηροῖ

et ecce bestia quarta horribilis × admirabilis et fortis uehementer × dentes eius ferrei

et ecce bestia quarta horribilis (et) admirabilis et fortis uehementer (et) dentes eius ferrei

PRIS tr 1 (9,13)

vs 7:4

39 See p. 202 for the justification for abandoning the reading of the edition, uolucris, in favor of that of the manuscripts, uolucres.

194

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

Vorlage

Lucifer

agreements

witnesses

7:9

ἐθεώρουν

uidebam

uidebam

VL 176; CHRY lap 12 (290,72); CHRO Mt 54A,10 (634,262); RUF Bas 7 (133,191); RUF Eus 1,2,24 (27,9); RUF Rm 9,41 (772,19); PSVIG Var 1,47 (58)

7:9

θρόνοι

sedes (plural)

sedes (plural)

VL 176; RUF Eus 1,2,24 (27,9); RUF Rm 9,41 (772,19); PSVIG Var 1,47 (58);

7:9

παλαιὸς ἡμερῶν

uetustus dierum

uetustus dierum

VL 176; PS-CY Nov 17,1 (150,25); RUF Eus 1,2,24 (27,9); RUF Rm 9,41 (772,19); AU tri 2,33 (124,11); CHRY lap 12 (290,72)

7:9

τὸ ἔνδυμα

uestitus

uestitus

VL 176; PS-CY Nov 17,1 (150,25); ANT-S 214v,5 (118)

vs



Lucifer 195

vs

Vorlage

Lucifer

agreements

witnesses

7:9

ὁ θρόνος

sedis

sedis

HIL Ps 67,18 (274,4)

7:9

(πῦρ) φλέγον

(ignis) ardens

(ignis) ardens

VL 176; PS-CY Nov 17,1 (150,25); HIL Ps 67,18 (274,4); RUF Bas 7 (133,191); AN s Et 8,2 (327,36)

7:10

εἷλκεν

ucebat

ducebat

VL 176; HIL Ps 67,18 (274,5)

7:10

χίλιαι χιλιάδες ἐλειτούργουν αὐτῷ

milia milium seruiebant ei

milia milium seruiebant ei

PS-CY Nov 17,1 (151,4); HIL Ps 67,18 (274,5)

milia miliorum seruiebant ei

VL 176

7:10

καὶ μύριαι μυριάδες παρειστήκεισαν

et dena milia denum milium adstabant

et dena milia denum milium adstabant

VL 176; HIL Ps 67,18 (274,5)

7:10

κριτήριον ἐκάθισε

in iudicium sedit

in iudicium sedit

VL 176

ad iudicium sedit

PS-CY Nov 17,1 (151,4)

196

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

vs 7:11

7:12

Vorlage

Lucifer

agreements

witnesses

ἕως ἀνῃρέθη τὸ θηρίον καὶ ἀπώλετο,

quoadusque interiuit bestia et periit

καὶ τὸ σῶμα αὐτοῦ ἐδόθη εἰς καῦσιν πυρός

et corpus eius datum est ut conburatur

quoadusque (interfecta est) bestia et periit (perit VL 176) et corpus eius datum est ut comburatur

VL 176; Hesychius of Salona: [AU] ep 198,3 (238,2)

καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν θηρίων ἡ ἀρχὴ μετεστάθη, καὶ μακρότης

et reliquarum bestiarum regnum translatum est, et longitudo

et reliquarum bestiarum regnum translatum est, et longitudo (magnitudo Hesychius) uitae data est eis usque ad

VL 176; Hesychius of Salona: [AU] ep 198,3 (238,4)

ζωῆς uitae ἐδόθη αὐτοῖς data est eis ἕως usque ad χρόνου καὶ (om. codd) tempus καιροῦ 7:13

ἐθεώρουν ἐν ὁράματι

uidebam in uisum

tempus uidebam in uisum

VL 176

uidebam in uisu

CY te 2,26 (63,3); LAC in 4,12,12 (312,9); LAC epit 42,4 (63,9); FIR err 24,6 (134); RUF sy 32 (167,10); PS-AU alt (41,425); AU ci 18,34,6 (628); AU leg 2,12 (100,413); PS-VIG Var 1,47 (58); PSVIG tri 3,93 (54,836)



Lucifer 197

Vorlage

Lucifer

agreements

witnesses

7:13

ἐρχόμενος· καὶ ἦλθεν (Iust.)

ueniens × uenit

ueniens × uenit

TE Marc 3,7,4 (88,25); [TE] Jud 14,4 (39,2); CY te 2,26 (63,3); EVA-G 6 (291,224); FIR err 24,6 (134); PS-AU alt (41,425)

7:13

τοῦ παλαιοῦ τῶν ἡμερῶν

uetustum dierum

uetustum dierum

VL 176; LAC in 4,12,12 (312,9); LAC in 4,21,1 (367,11); HIL Ps 144,1 (268,22); RUF sy 32 (167,10); RUF Eus 1,2,25 (27,13); CHRY lap 12 (291,77); PSVIG Var 1,47 (58)

7:13

προσηνέχθη αὐτῷ (Qc)

oblatus est ei

oblatus est ei

VL 176; LAC in 4,12,15 (313,16); HIL Ps 144,1 (268,22); AU tri 2,33 (124,17); CHRY lap 12 (291,77)

vs

198

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

vs 7:14

Vorlage

Lucifer

agreements

witnesses

καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτῷ ἡ ἀρχὴ καὶ ἡ τιμὴ καὶ ἡ βασιλεία

et datum est ei regnum et honor et imperium

et datum est ei regnum et honor et imperium

VL 176; LAC in 4,12,12 (312,12); LAC epit 42,4 (63,12)

et datum est ei regnum et honor (× ×)

RES-R 6128 (32)

numquam transibit

LAC in 4,12,12 (312,12); LAC in 4,12,19 (315,3); LAC epit 42,4 (63,12); HIL Ps 144,1 (268,24)

numquam transiuit

VL 176

7:14 οὐ παρελεύσεται

numquam transibit

7:14 δουλεύουσιν (B-239)

seruiunt

seruiunt

VL 176; LAC in 4,12,19 (315,3); PSVIG tri 3,93 (54,841)

7:14 αἰώνιος

perpetua

perpetua

VL 176; PSVIG tri 3,93 (54,841)

7:18 ὑψίστου ×

altissimi Dei

i Dei

VL 176

summi Dei

VICn Apc 21,3 (120,23)

ualebat

IR 5,25,3 (314,50)

praeualebat

VL 176

7:21 ἴσχυε(ν)

ualebat



Lucifer 199

vs

Vorlage

7:22 ἕως οὗ ἦλθεν ὁ παλαιὸς τῶν ἡμερῶν καὶ τὸ κρίμα ἔδωκεν ἁγίοις ὑψίστου… × καὶ τὴν βασιλείαν κατέσχον οἱ ἅγιοι

7:23

7:24

Lucifer

agreements

witnesses

quoadusque aduenit uetustus dierum et iudicium dedit sanctis altissimi Dei… et regnum obtinuerunt sancti

(quod) aduenit uetustus dierum et iudicium dedit sanctis altissimi Dei… et regnum obnuerunt sancti

VL 176

quoadusque (uenit) uetustus dierum et iudicium dedit sanctis altissimi Dei… et regnum obtinuerunt sancti

IR 5,25,3 (314,51)

VL 176; IR 5,25,3 (314,54)

VL 176; IR 5,25,3 (316,57); AU ci 20,23,29 (742)

τὸ θηρίον τὸ τέταρτον, βασιλεία τετάρτη ἔσται ἐν τῇ γῇ, ἥτις ὑπερέξει… καὶ καταφάγεται πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν καὶ συμπατήσει

bestia quarta quartum regnum erit in terra quod eminebit… et manducabit omnem terram et conculcabit

αὐτὴν καὶ κατακόψει

eam et concidet

bestia quarta quartum regnum erit in terra quod eminebit… et manducabit omnem terram et conculcabit (-auit VL 176) eam et concidit

τοὺς ἔμπροσθεν αὐτοῦ (230)

qui ante eum fuerunt

qui ante eum fuerunt

200

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

vs 7:25

Vorlage

Lucifer

agreements

witnesses

καὶ λόγους πρὸς τὸν ὕψιστον × λαλήσει καὶ τοὺς ἁγίους ὑψίστου ×… καιροὺς καὶ νόμον, καὶ δοθήσεται ἐν χειρὶ αὐτοῦ ἕως καιροῦ καιρῶν καὶ ἥμισυ καιροῦ

et uerba aduersus altissimum Deum loquetur et sanctos altissimi Dei… tempora et legem et dabitur in manu eius usque ad tempus temporum et dimidium temporis

et uerba aduersus altissimum Deum loquetur et sanctos altissimi Dei… tempora et legem et dabitur in manu eius usque ad tempus temporum et dimidium (tempus)

IR 5,25,3 (316,60)

et uerba aduersum altissimum Deum (loquitur) et sanctos altissimi Dei… tempora et legem et dabitur in manu eius usque ad tempus temporum et dimidium temporis

VL 176

7:26

τὴν ἀρχὴν

regnum

regnum

VL 176; HI Dncom 4 (941,611)

7:27

ὑψίστου ×

altissimi Dei

altissimi Dei

VL 176; IR 5,34,2 (428,56)

altissimo Deo

*ANT-S 216v,7 (267)

regnum eius × sempiternum

IR 5,34,2 (428,56)

7:27

ἡ βασιλεία αὐτοῦ βασιλεία αἰώνιος

regnum eius × sempiternum



Lucifer 201

Aside from VL 176, the witness most prominent for its agreements with the Sardinian is, above all, Irenaeus’s Adversus haereses; after that work, ancient authors Priscillian of Avila, the little-known Hesychius of Salona (modern-day Split, Croatia), and Lactantius deserve mention. After those, an array of agreements from a wide range of authors will be more briefly outlined, for which the reader can refer back to the table just presented. It was earlier noted that, for Dn 12:4, the Adversus haereses’s agreement with Cyprianic material is significant enough to suggest a relationship of literary dependence. The work’s multiple verses overlapping with Lucifer leave no doubt that they belong to a common stemma codicum. This can be verified by examining the long table at the end of this subsection. What’s more, Irenaeus’s Latin text, lacking an extant equivalent in the original Greek, regularly agrees with Lucifer against the quite literal Armenian version or against LXXθ’. This implies that Irenaeus’s Latin translator, rather than newly translating all the biblical citations, made use of an existing translation of the same text type as Lucifer’s. Here follow the pertinent disagreements between the Latin and Armenian Adversus haereses, where the Latin agrees with Lucifer. One exception is included, the first row, in which it is not the Armenian version but rather LXXθ’ which provides the contrast. The readings in Armenian are taken from the Latin edition, which includes an Armenian apparatus that translates variants into Latin. Vorlage

Armenian IR

IR and LUC

κατακρίνων ἀπολύων

damnans… dimittens

damnabas… dimittebas

7:21

ἴσχυε πρὸς αὐτούς (codd)

ualebat super eos

ualebat aduersus eos

7:22

ὑψίστου ×

altissimi ×

altissimi Dei

7:24

LXXθ’: βασιλεῖς Complutensian (and Ethiopian): βασιλεῖαι

regna

reges

7:24

LXXθ’: ὀπίσω αὐτῶν codd: ὀπίσω αὐτοῦ

post eum

post eos

7:24

τοὺς ἔμπροσθεν αυτου (230)

priores

qui ante eum fuerunt

7:25

τὸν ὕψιστον ×… ὑψίστου ×

altissimum ×… altissimi ×

altissimum Deum… altissimi Dei

vs Sus 53

202

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

Vorlage

Armenian IR

IR and LUC

7:25

ἕως καιροῦ

usque ad tempora

usque ad tempus

7:27

ὑψίστου ×, καί ἡ βασιλεία αὐτοῦ βασιλεία αἰώνιος

altissimi ×, et regnum eius regnum sempiternum

altissimi Dei, et regnum eius × sempiternum

vs

As for Priscillian of Avila, only a 5th- or 6th-c. codex unicus of his Tractatus survived his condemnation as a heretic. Discovered and published in the 19th c., the manuscript provides a citation of Dn 7:2-7 bearing much similarity to Lucifer’s corresponding text. The agreement with Lucifer’s uolucres at Dn 7:6 to describe the alae quattuor is noteworthy, for all the editions emend Lucifer’s text according to the Greek: πετεινοῦ | *uolucris. Although the literal, emended reading may be the more primitive one for VL per se, the patristic manuscripts’ reading uolucres should be retained as Lucifer’s text.40 Hence uolucres serves as an adjective, “flying,” to describe the four alae, “wings.” Thanks to Augustine’s correspondence with Hesychius of Salona from around the year 420, we know his versions of Dn 7:11-12. The citation within the Augustinian epistolary is almost identical to Lucifer and VL 176. This enlarges the geographic area in which we know the Lucifer’s text type circulated so that it includes at least Hesychius’s episcopal see in Dalmatia. Lactantius, although providing shorter agreements with Lucifer from his citations of Dn 7:13-14, deserves mention for several reasons. First, his citations of these two verses, despite fluctuating a bit, provide agreements with the Sardinian even against other witnesses. Second, Lactantius precedes Lucifer and the other three Fathers just treated by half a century or more, writing in the early 4th c. Third, his literary activity in Nicomedia (northwestern Asia Minor) and Augusta Treverorum (northeastern Gaul; modern-day Trier) further expands the circulation of a text with readings matching Lucifer’s, regardless of the (unknown) provenance of Lactantius’s Latin Dn. Lactantius’s shared pairings with the Sardinian include Dn 7:13 ὁ παλαιός τῶν ἡμερῶν | uetustus dierum in multiple instances, despite the alternatives *uetus and *antiquus.41 In the same verse they share oblatus est ei,42 from προσηνέχθη (or προσήχθη)43 αὐτῷ, at a point where the Greek and Latin texts exhibit significant variety. Their longest agreement, καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτῷ ἡ ἀρχὴ καὶ ἡ τιμὴ καὶ ἡ βασιλεία | 40 Wilhelm von Hartel points out the alternation between e and i in Lucifer, in these publications: introduction to Lucifer of Cagliari, Opuscula XXVII-XXVIIII; “Lucifer von Cagliari und sein Latein,” ALLG 3 (1886) 1-58, 6-7. 41 Antiquus, with Vg, at LAC in 4,12,15 (313,16) and LAC epit 42,4 (63,9). 42 LAC in 4,12,15 (313,16). By contrast, LAC epit 42,4 (63,9) reads, with Vg, obtulerunt eum. 43 Cf. p. 190.



Lucifer 203

et datum est ei regnum et honor et imperium at Dn 7:14, follows a transposition from LXXo’, ἐδόθη αὐτῷ | datum est ei, little-attested in LXXθ’ witnesses. Lactantius also anticipates Lucifer’s text with his pairs ἡ ἀρχή | regnum and ἡ βασιλεία | imperium despite alternatives such as ἡ ἀρχή | *principatus and ἡ βασιλεία | *regnum, two Latin terms that etymologically match their sources and are much better attested for this verse.44 Lactantius’s seruiunt ei in one of his citations of Dn 7:14 matches Lucifer’s, which apparently derives from the little-attested reading δουλεύουσιν αὐτῷ. Finally, he consistently matches Lucifer’s οὐ παρελεύσεται | numquam transibit, never using the more obvious adverb *non for this first instance of οὐ in Dn 7:14. More far-flung agreements further enhance our understanding of the spatiotemporal distribution of Luciferian readings. In the section on Cyprianic texts we saw an important agreement with Lucifer at Dn 7:10 (repeated at p. 195), a piece of evidence for a hypothetical common, North African origin for their texts. They share other readings in this chapter as well. Victorinus of Poetovium (Ptuj, Slovenia), continues the VL practice of adding Deus (Dn 7:18) within Sus-Dn-Bel when God is referred to simply as “(the) most high,” a practice prolonged by Lucifer and also attested to by an allusion of the Sinai Antiphonary at Dn 7:27. Hilary of Poitiers, mid-4th-c. bishop in Gaul, shares ὁ θρόνος | sedis at 7:9 with Lucifer, adapting the 5th-declension nominative *sedes to a 3rd-declension nominative form. Eusebius of Vercelli, who ministered in northern Italy in the mid-4th c. but was born in Sardinia, matches Lucifer’s φοβούμεναι ὡμίλουν ὑμῖν | timentes concumbebant uobiscum at Sus 57. His fellow Italian Ambrose of Milan cites Sus 45 almost identically to Lucifer’s version. Jerome, who gives strong preference to his own translation of Dn, betrays his knowledge of the Luciferian text of Dn 7:2; he also matches the Latin term of Lucifer’s pair ἡ ἀρχή | regnum at 7:26, against the Vg. At Sus 42 the pairing ὁ τῶν κρυπτῶν γνώστης | qui occultorum cognitor es survived into the 5th c., as Victor of Vita (North Africa), Nicetas of Remesiana (Balkan Peninsula), and Pseudo-Vigilius of Thapsus (Contra Varimadum, North Africa) attest. 1.3. Alignment with LXXθ’ and Greek witnesses Lucifer’s texts of Sus-Dn-Bel, that is, most of the chapters Sus and Dn 7, derive from the LXXθ’ tradition and only occasionally agree with LXXo’ readings. Such exceptions are short, isolated instances, of the kind so often found in the Greek manuscripts of LXXθ’.45 So there is no need to posit direct influence from the LXXo’ textual tradition on 44 Ἡ ἀρχή | principatus together with ἡ βασιλεία | regnum for Dn 7:14 can be found in: HIL Ps 144,1 (268,24); RUF sy 32 (167,12); CHRY lap 12 (291,80); AU tri 2,33 (124,20); RUF Eus 1,2,25 (29,1); AU ci 18,34,9 (628); AU leg 2,12 (100,415); VIG-T Eut 5,13 (144B); ANT-M 56r (66); *RES-R 1788 (96). Cf. Vg potestas… regnum. 45 E.g. Lucifer’s agreement with LXXo’ at Sus 52 καὶ ἐκάλεσε | et uocauit against LXXθ’ ὡς δὲ διεχωρίσθησαν εἶς ἀπὸ τοῦ ἑνός, × ἐκάλεσε; Dn 7:3 θηρία × | bestiae × against LXXθ’ θηρία μεγάλα; Dn 7:13 Justin Martyr, within the LXXo’ tradition, ἐρχόμενος (καὶ) ἦλθεν | ueniens × uenit against LXXθ’ ἐρχόμενος × ×;

204

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

the Latin text in order to explain them; they are too infrequent for that, especially considering the extant support within the LXXθ’ tradition for some of them. More probably, LXXo’ readings made their way into Lucifer’s text through variants in its LXXθ’ Vorlage or through the influence of an earlier Latin tradition containing LXXo’ readings. We saw already for Cyprianic citations that Greek 230 held special importance, and the same is true for Lucifer. This manuscript and its group Q-230-233-541 show more shared variants with Lucifer than the other groups. Besides Greek 230, the other manuscript of the group closely correlated to Lucifer is Greek 541. The following table shows a dozen instances in which his readings correspond to a manuscript(s) of the Greek Q group and only one other, or no other, Greek manuscript. Note that one of Ziegler – Munnich’s alignments has been omitted from the table due to its reliance on an outdated edition of Lucifer. Although previous editions read cuius at Dn 7:20, the current edition restores the manuscripts’ reading, cui, in accord with LXXθ’. Likewise, Luciferian readings absent from Ziegler – Munnich’s apparatus have been added at Sus 22. LXXθ’ has the coordinating conjunction τε… τε, represented in the two rows of this table dedicated to this verse. Taken alone, Lucifer’s agreement with Greek 230-541, which omit the first τε, is quite uncertain; the lack of a direct equivalent for τε could easily be due to the translator’s technique. Nevertheless, given the more probable agreement between Greek 541 δε (instead of LXXθ’ τε 2°) and Lucifer’s autem in the same verse, as well as the further agreements between these two witnesses, it is reasonable to include these two lines from Sus 22 in the table. Indeed, concerning Lucifer’s text vis-à-vis τε… τε and its variants, Greek 541 provides the closest match. vs

LXX

θ’

Greek Q-230-233-541

Lucifer

Sus 22

ἐάν τε γάρ

ἐάν × γάρ 91 230-541

si × enim

Sus 22

τε 2°

δε 410 541

autem

Sus 30

αὐτῆς καὶ τὰ τέκνα αὐτῆς

αὐτῆς × 62 541

eius

Sus 38

ἐδράμομεν

ἐπεδράμομεν Q

adcurrimus46

Sus 43

μή… μηδέν

μηδέν… × 26 541

nihil… ×

Dn 7:14 LXXo’ (and LXXθ’ codd) καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτῷ | et datum est ei against LXXθ’ καὶ ~αὐτῷ ἐδόθη; Dn 7:14 LXXo’ (and LXXθ’ codd) καὶ ἡ ἐξουσία | et potestas against LXXθ’ × ἡ ἐξουσία. 46 According to Ziegler’s critical apparatus, this reading derives from ἐπεδράμομεν. Yet it could also result from ἐδράμομεν.



Lucifer 205

vs

θ’

Greek Q-230-233-541

Lucifer

εὐλόγησαν

εὐλόγησε 46 541 (ηὐλ-)

benedixit

7:5

ἔλεγον

ἔλεγεν 541 584

dixit

7:9

καί 2°

× 230-541

×

Sus 60

LXX

7:15

αἱ ὁράσεις τῆς κεφαλῆς μου ἡ ὅρασις τῆς κεφαλῆς μου ἐτάρασσόν με συνετάρασσεν με 230

uisus capitis mei conturbabat me

7:17

τὰ τέσσαρα × (τὰ μεγάλα τὰ τέσσ. codd)

τὰ τέσσαρα τὰ μεγάλα 541

quattuor magnae

7:20

τρία ×

τρία κέρατα 230-233-541

tria cornua

7:24

ἔμπροσθεν ×

ἔμπροσθεν αὐτοῦ 230

ante eum

Lucifer’s association with these manuscripts must not be overstated, however, since there are over a dozen variants in Lucifer that align with just one or two LXX manuscripts outside the Q group. These particular readings align with Greek A, B, and their groupings of minuscules, as well as the occasional manuscript of LXXo’, the Hexaplaric group, the Lucianic one, and catena witnesses. A few of these were included in the table above when they agreed with a manuscript of the Q group. The rest are listed below, among which Greek B and its dependent minuscule 26 have a few exclusive agreements with Lucifer. Likewise, Greek A and its dependent 584 each have an exclusive agreement. θ’

vs LXX

Greek

Lucifer

Sus 41 ἡ συναγωγή ×

cf. ἡ συναγωγὴ πᾶσα 588 (=LXXο’)

omnis synagoga (with Bo, Sy)

Sus 42 φωνῇ μεγάλῃ Σουσάννα

~Σουσάννα φωνῇ μεγάλῃ 26 588

Susanna uoce magna

Sus 47 ὁ λόγος οὗτος

~οὗτος ὁ λόγος 26

iste sermo

Sus 51 ἀπʼ ἀλλήλων μακράν

ἀπʼ ἀλλήλων × 584

ab alterutro ×

206

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

θ’

vs LXX

Greek

Lucifer

Sus 52 τὸν ἕνα × αὐτῶν

τὸν ἕνα ἐξ αὐτῶν 584

unum ex illis

Sus 55 ἄγγελος τοῦ θεοῦ

ἄγγελος κυρίου V 405

angelus Domini

7:1 τὸ ἐνύπνιον ×

τὸ ἐνύπνιον αὐτοῦ B

somnium suum

7:2 ἐθεώρουν × × × × × B-26-46′

ἐθεώρουν ἐν ὁράματί μου τῆς νυκτὸς (codd)

uidebam × × × × ×

7:3 θηρία μεγάλα

θηρία × 763 239 (=LXXο’)

bestiae ×

7:5 εἰς μέρος ἓν ἐστάθη

~εἰς ἓν μέρος ἐστάθη 106 584

in una parte stetit

7:7 καὶ οἱ ὀδόντες

× οἱ ὀδόντες A

× dentes

7:7 ἐσθίον καὶ λεπτῦνον

ἐσθίον (ἤσ- Tht.47) και ελεπτυνον 407

manducabant et comminuebant

7:8 × προσενόουν

καὶ προσενόουν 22c?

et intendebam

7:8 × τοῖς κέρασιν

ἐν τοῖς κέρασιν 62′

in cornua

7:8 ὀφθαλμοὶ ὡσεὶ ὀφθαλμοὶ ἀνθρώπου

ὀφθαλμοὶ × × ἀνθρώπου 311 49txt-405

oculi × × hominis

7:9 × ὁ θρόνος

καὶ ὁ θρόνος 26

et sedis

7:14 δουλεύσουσιν αὐτῷ

δουλεύουσιν αὐτῷ B-239

seruiunt ei

7:14 × ἡ ἐξουσία

καὶ ἡ ἐξουσία L’-311 (=LXXο’)

et potestas

47 The variant ἐσθίον is also attested in Theodoret’s manuscripts; Theodoret of Cyrrhus, “Υπομνημα εις τας ορασεις του προφητου Δανιηλ = Commentarius in visiones Danielis Prophetae,” Απαντα = Opera omnia. Ex recensione Jacobi Sirmondi. Denuo edidit, graeca e codicibus locupletavit, antiquiores editiones adhibuit, versionem latinam recognovit et variantes lectiones adiecit Ioann. Ludov. Schulze. Tomus II/2 (ed. J. L. Schulze – J. Sirmond) (Halae 1770) 1053-1304, 1195.



Lucifer 207

Note also that this study pairs προσηνέχθη αὐτῷ of Greek Qc and various Greek Fathers with oblatus est ei at Dn 7:13, which differs from Ziegler – Munnich, who align Lucifer’s text with προσήχθη αὐτῷ. One reason to depart from the editors lies in Lucifer’s agreements with Greek witnesses of the phrase immediately following (at 7:14). The three Greek witnesses in the transmission of LXXθ’ that match Lucifer’s et datum est ei, with the LXXo’ reading καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτῷ, are Hippolytus’s De antichristo, Eusebius of Caesarea’s Demonstratio evangelica, and his Eclogae propheticae.48 All three of these read προσηνέχθη αὐτῷ at the end of 7:13, immediately prior to the more certain agreement with Lucifer at the beginning of the next verse. Besides this circumstantial evidence, oblatus est more closely matches προσηνέχθη (προσφέρω) than προσήχθη (προσάγω); the latter might have been rendered by *adactus est or *adductus est. Dn 7:13-14 Vorlage

Lucifer

(ὡς υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου… ἦλθεν…) ἕως

(ut filius hominis… uenit…) usque ad

τοῦ παλαιοῦ τῶν ἡμερῶν· ἔφθασε καὶ

uetustum dierum. Anticipauit et

προσηνέχθη αὐτῷ 14 καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτῷ ἡ ἀρχὴ

oblatus est ei 14 et datum est ei regnum

καὶ ἡ τιμὴ καὶ ἡ βασιλεία

et honor et imperium

2. Linguistic analysis Lucifer cites Sus-Dn-Bel at a juncture just over a century later than Cyprian. Here again we encounter a text that implies a competent translator who renders the Greek rather literally but still takes some liberties. Not surprisingly for the latter half of the 4th c., the case system shows signs of corruption; this was also true of the Pseudo-Cyprianic material. In the lexical realm, Lucifer provides us a rich array of vocabulary, attesting multiple translations for the same word in different instances. Sometimes these lexical selections differ from all other witnesses to VL Sus-Dn-Bel, as is the case for ὁμιλέω | tracto without any homiletic context, and παράδεισος | uiridiarium where otherwise paradisus prevails. These, nevertheless, do occur in Hippol. ant 22 (16,16); Eus. dem, Bruchstück 3 (495,24); Eus. ecl 1,44 (1173C). In addition to these three, Ziegler – Munnich also cite Cyr. ado 4 (313B) according to Migne’s edition. Although the Ziegler – Munnich apparatus lists this witness among the three just given, in fact it does not share their transposition but instead matches LXXθ’. The agreement with LXXθ’ can be seen already in Jean Aubert’s 1638 first edition of the work, which gave rise to a 1737 revised edition that Migne took as his source. See Cyril of Alexandria, “Περι της εν πνευματι και αληθεια προσκυνησεως και λατρειας = De adoratione et cultu in spiritu et veritate,” Opera in VI tomos tributa. Tomus I (ed. J. Aubert) (Lutetiae 1638) 1-631, 113C. 48

208

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

other VL books. Finally, Lucifer stands out for his use of asyndeton, apparently even when citing the sacred scriptures. He thereby complicates a text that had surely undergone previous revision, leaving his own mark on it as he passed it on to his readers. Here one sees the importance of linguistic analysis in support of textual criticism, for without it his minuses might all be attributed to his Greek Vorlage or another stage of the Latin transmission. 2.1. Sample texts The two chapters which Lucifer provides from Sus-Dn differ greatly in content, so a sample verse will be provided for each. Sus 36

Lucifer

εἶπαν δὲ οἱ πρεσβύτεροι, Περιπατούντων

Dixerunt autem presbyteri, “Ambulantibus

ἡμῶν ἐν τῷ παραδείσῳ μόνων εἰσῆλθεν

nobis in uiridiario solis intrauit

αὕτη μετὰ δύο παιδισκῶν καὶ ἀπέλυσε

haec cum × puellis.” Et dimisit

τὰς παιδίσκας καὶ ἀπέκλεισε τὰς θύρας

puellas et clusit ostia

τοῦ παραδείσου·

uiridiarii.

Dn 7:15

Lucifer

ἔφριξε τὸ πνεῦμά μου ἐν τῇ ἕξει μου, ἐγὼ

Horruit spiritus meus in habitu meo, et ego

Δανιηλ, καὶ ἡ ὅρασις τῆς κεφαλῆς μου

Danihel, et uisus capitis mei

συνετάρασσεν με

conturbabat me.

Besides the difference in content, notice how much more smoothly the verse from Sus reads than that of Dn 7. Such is the case for these chapters in general: Lucifer’s Sus is quite readable, an entertaining story, whereas his Dn 7 is awkward in style49 and perplexing in content. They each align closely with particular witnesses to LXXθ’ (see Ziegler – Munnich’s apparatus for details), reproducing them nearly word for word. Their syntax, therefore, is mostly subordinate to that of the Greek text, and syntactical observations have been incorporated into various 49 See Dn 7:4, awkward due to a minus; Dn 7:14, awkward due to multiple shifts in tenses, following the manuscripts for sedit against the editions; Dn 7:15 awkward for its stilted language, worsened by the plus of the first et; Dn 7:26 awkward for its fluctuation of tenses. Cf. Sus 59, awkward for the participle manens where *manet is expected.



Lucifer 209

subsections, for example non-classical sequences of tenses within the subsection on vulgarisms. The pairing περιπατέω | ambulo at Sus 36 shows a lack of concern to align Greek verbs in composition with corresponding Latin ones in composition, which is typical of this material. Περιπατέω, here part of a genitive absolute, is naturally rendered by a Latin ablative absolute. On the one hand, the rendering πρεσβύτερος | presbyter runs the risk of confusing the ancient Christian reader by applying a Christian Hellenism to a Jewish context. On the other hand, by pairing παράδεισος | uiridiarium the ancient reader is spared the potentially confusing Hellenism *paradisus found elsewhere in VL Sus. The verbs are ably translated into Latin, using the Latin perfect tense for Greek aorists and Latin present tense for a presenttense Vorlage. The language of the sample verse from Dn 7 is stilted, a property amplified by the addition of the first et without support for it in the Greek. The ancient reader may have wondered, “What does in habitu meo mean? Where else would his spirit shudder but inside him? Why does Daniel describe his vision as ‘of my head,’ since it could scarcely be of his foot?” The Greek text, it should be noted, presents the same difficulties; the translator has faithfully done his job without “fixing” the text. He has chosen straightforward lexical equivalents for his Greek source, and has used the predictable perfect tense for the aorist and the imperfect for the Greek tense of the same name. So, although the context between these chapters differs greatly, the implicit translation techniques are quite similar to one another. Besides the fact that Sus-Dn were transmitted together in the manuscript tradition, there is further justification for treating these two chapters together. Namely, Lucifer’s two chapters of Sus-Dn manifest similar translation techniques, even in the fluctuation between omnes and ceteri to render πάντες,50 and between surgo and its forms in composition (ad- / ex-) for ἀνίστημι.51 2.2. Morphology At Dn 7:5 one finds a Hellenism, namely ὅμοιον ἄρκῳ translated similis ursae, where the Latin feminine may be due to the feminine noun ἄρκ(τ)ος being employed for bears of both sexes in classical Greek. The rest of the morphological features treated here are vulgarisms. Lucifer’s texts, like Cyprian’s, include post-classical elements, though their later dates makes them less useful for establishing that a usage was current from the dawn 50 There is precedent for the potentially misleading πάντες | ceteri, e.g. Cyprian and Lactantius’s text of Is 53:3. Cf. R. Gryson (ed.), Esaias, II, 1656. 51 See pp. 214-216.

210

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

of Latin scriptures. A century elapsed between Cyprian and Lucifer, during which time Christian Latin matured, and the ages of Golden and Silver Latin faded further into the past. Lucifer provides far fewer vulgarisms per line than Cyprian. One notes confusion between neuters and masculines and a shift from the fifth to the third declension. At Dn 7:18 regnum is a masculine noun, made evident by eum rather than *id referring back to it. Nor is this an isolated instance for Lucifer: in his prose he writes regnum caelestem.52 These occurrences can be added to the two manuscripts of Mc 9:1 adduced by Edoardo Vineis.53 Lucifer fills in a gap since Vineis found no evidence for the phenomenon between the time of the gospel manuscripts and the second half of the 7th c. At Dn 7:9 one reads ὁ θρόνος | sedis, the Latin being in the third declension instead of *sedes of the fifth. Diercks was right, given the manuscript evidence, to restore this reading, which was obscured in Hartel’s edition of the prior century. Although neither Rönsch nor Vineis provide evidence concerning this noun, the former furnishes ample documentation for this very shift from -es to -is as a nominative ending of the third declension in VL texts: e.g. famis, nubis, sepis, aedis.54

Vorlage

Lucifer

ὁ θεὸς ὁ αἰώνιος ὁ τῶν κρυπτῶν γνώστης

Deus aeternus qui occul- vocative aeternus for torum cognitor es *aeterne55

7:8

αὐτοῦ

illum

for *illud 56

7:9

ὁ θρόνος

sedis

third declension for fifth

παραλήμψονται τὴν βασιλείαν… καθέξουσιν αὐτὴν

(accipient) regnum… (obtinebunt) eum

masculine regnum

vs(s) Sus 42

7:18

vulgar aspect

LUC Ath 2,4 (82,20). Cf., however, regnum caeleste at LUC Ath 1,5 (10,30) and LUC mor 1 (266,36). “Studio (part 1),” 200. Cf. Rönsch, Itala, 265-268; Väänänen, Latin vulgaire, §§ 214, 220. 54 Rönsch, Itala, 263. The 7th- or 8th-c. manuscript of the Appendix Probi instructs the reader to write sedes, not sedis; J. G. F. Powell, “A New Text of the Appendix Probi,” CQ 57/2 (2007) 687-700, 697, line 108. See also M. Leumann, Lateinische Grammatik. I. Lateinische Laut- und Formen-Lehre (ed. H. Bengtson) (HAW 2/2/I; München 51977) 344. 55 Cf. Sus 52, where both the Greek and Latin are in the vocative: πεπαλαιωμένε | inueterate. 56 See the reference to Vineis in at p. 140, n. 34. 52 53



Lucifer 211

2.3. Lexicon a. Loan-words from Greek Although the Semitic elements come across more strongly, there are Hellenistic ones as well. The loan-words presbyteri (passim) and synagoga (Sus 41. 60) stand out, which will each be treated more thoroughly below, in the subsection for noteworthy lemmata. b. Semitisms Lucifer’s VL Sus-Dn, like that of Cyprian before him, contains many Semitisms. Some of these adapt well to Latin, whereas others put the reader’s comprehension at risk. The example from Sus 41 in the following table, et noluit nobis dicere, will be easily understood despite its use of the Semitic, paratactic et instead of an adversative conjunction, for example *sed. At the other extreme, the average Latin-speaking Christian will scarcely understand Dn 7:11 uidebam… a uoce sermonum, a calque on LXXθ’, itself a calque on the Aramaic. It is difficult to imagine the Latin translator producing *propter uocem sermonum unless he knew Aramaic. The following table includes a selection of approximately a quarter of the Semitisms within the material at hand. An effort was made to include those most noteworthy to the Latin reader. Vorlage

Lucifer

Semitic aspect(s)

Sus 29

ἀποστείλατε ἐπί Σουσάνναν θυγατέρα Χελκίου… οἱ δὲ ἀπέστειλαν

mittite ad Susannam filiam Chelchiam... et miserunt

mittite ad and miserunt for summoning; patronymic identification formula filiam Chelchiam

Sus 41

καί οὐκ ἠθέλησεν ἀναγγεῖλαι ἡμῖν

et noluit nobis dicere

adversative et

Sus 46

καθαρός ἐγὼ ἀπὸ τοῦ αἵματος ταύτης

mundus ego a sanguine huius

sanguis as life (cf. Sus 62), here more precisely as the bloodshed which constitutes the taking of innocent life

Sus 47

οὗτος ὁ λόγος ὃν σὺ λελάληκας

iste sermo quem tu locutus es

sermo denoting not only speech but also its contents, the *res

vs

212

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

Vorlage

Lucifer

Semitic aspect(s)

σπέρμα Χανααν

semen Chanaan

semen designating offspring and followed by a descriptive, genitive noun, Chanaan (cf. 1 Rg 7:10 filii iniquitatis)

ποδῶν ἀνθρώπου… καρδία ἀνθρώπου

hominis pedes… cor hominis

hominis instead of the adjective *humanus (cf. 7:8. 13)

7:11

ἐθεώρουν… ἀπὸ φωνῆς τῶν λόγων

uidebam… a uoce sermonum

a from ἀπό from Aramaic ‫מִן‬, meaning here “because of”

7:25

τοὺς ἁγίους… παλαιώσει

sanctos… inueterabit

inuetero for *obsolefacio; cf. Sus 52

vs Sus 56

7:4

c. Vulgarisms Lucifer’s two uses of anticipo constitute an apparent innovation. Nevertheless, these may manifest a more ancient lexical usage. He attests anticipo as an intransitive verb meaning “to come before, arrive,” which translates φθάνω twice in Dn 7. In the first occurrence, at 7:13, it is the Son of Man who came before the Ancient of Days: anticipauit (ἔφθασε) et oblatus est [uetusto dierum]; in the second instance, at 7:22, it is the appointed time that arrives: ὁ καιρὸς ἔφθασε | anticipauit tempus. Notwithstanding a similar instance in VL 2 at Mt 17:25, where Jesus “comes before” Peter verbally by anticipating his question (προέφθασεν αὐτόν | anticipauit eum), Lucifer’s use at Dn 7:13 — applying it to describe someone coming before another, in the spatial sense — seems to be unique in extant ancient literature. Lucifer’s second use of anticipo at 7:22, meaning simply “to arrive,” has no exact equivalent. In contrast to this use, the prefix anti- can indicate comparison, an element present either explicitly or implicitly in all of Georg Lehnert’s numerous examples within the pertinent section of his lexical entry in the Thesaurus Linguae Latinae, except Lucifer’s use at Dn 7:22.57 In his other use and that of VL 2, com57 G. Lehnert, “Anticipo,” TLL II, 167. The 1st-c.-BC author Varro provides the earliest of Lehnert’s examples within the pertinent section of his entry. It comes from a fragment of his Menippean satires: … uiuos contemnite uiui | anticipate atque addite calcar. stultos contemnite docti; Varro Men. 48 (8). Although the meaning of the verb is not entirely clear, the phrases immediately preceding and following lend themselves to an interpretation where anti- does indeed indicate precedence, i.e. taking action before the other uiui do so, outsmarting the stulti. The object of the previous phrase quoted, uiuos, may be understood as the implied object of anticipate as well. Johannes Vahlen offers this interpretation: “haec anticipate atque addite calcar



Lucifer 213

parison is present only in the spatial sense of coming before another, which likewise contrasts with the stronger element of comparison in the rest of the pertinent section of the lexical entry. Therefore, Lucifer’s uses of the verb, though similar to more ancient uses in which it is the equivalent to praeuenio, establish a theretofore unattested meaning. Here follows the table containing the case just treated, along with one syntactical innovation (Dn 7:23) and the rest of the lexical ones. Vorlage

Lucifer

vulgar aspect

ἐπιθυμία

concupiscentia

Late Latin coinage

Sus 23

ἁμαρτάνω

pecco

Christian, moral sense; cf. Sus 52

Sus 28

θανατόω

mortifico

Late Latin coinage

Sus 41

μαρτυρέω

contestor

for testimonio confirmo58

ἕως (ὅτου / οὗ)

quoadusque

for donec

φθάνω

anticipo

as “come before, arrive”

ὑπερέξει πάσας τὰς βασιλείας

eminebit omnia regna

with compared element as object59

vs(s) Sus 20. 56

7:9. 11. 22 7:13. 22 7:23

d. Expansion and contraction of vocabulary The short words of Lucifer’s Sus tend to be translated by a single Latin equivalent, but not so strictly as to exclude exceptions. Quoniam translates all four instances of ὅτι in Sus,60 and ut all three instances of ὡς in Sus-Dn-Bel.61 The two instances

hoc sensu efferunt: citato cursu praecurrite istos ac relinquite tardos”; In Marci Terentii Varronis Saturarum Menippearum reliquias coniectanea (Leipzig 1858, Hildesheim, NY 1974) 140. 58 This use is attested from Minucius Felix and Tertullian on; K. E. Goetz, “Contestor,” TLL IV, 688-691, 689-690. 59 Only Lactantius precedes Lucifer for this construction. See I. Kapp – G. Meyer, “Emineo,” TLL V/2, 490-496, 493. 60 Sus 21. 35. 43. 61. Cf. Dn 7:19 quod. 61 Sus 28. 41, Dn 7:13.

214

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

of μέν… δέ correspond appropriately to quidem… autem.62 Within Sus-Dn-Bel, Lucifer only attests translations of δέ in Sus, of which there are eighteen; eleven of these are rendered by a postpositive autem.63 The other instances show a diversity of translations, such an initial paratactic et, 3x, or omission.64 Γάρ is always rendered by a postpositive conjunction, 4x enim65 and 1x etenim.66 The two instances of οὖν are divided between tamen and autem.67 The rendering of the Greek short words, mostly found in Sus, shows that Lucifer’s text was not subjected to a thoroughgoing revision to achieve transparent quantitative equivalence to the Greek text in Latin. Δέ provides an excellent example: a consistent rendering by autem would have yielded an intelligible calque of the Greek, yet this would read as a calque indeed, its constant repetition being rather un-Latin. Furthermore, autem also appears without an underlying δέ. However, the seven instances in which the translator avoids autem for δέ do not show particular finesse. Three of these are precisely the heavy yet familiar paratactic et, and one is a misleading igitur.68 What is true of Lucifer’s short words is also true of the longer ones: one term tends to dominate as the translation for a single Greek lexeme, though not without exceptions. Overall, his vocabulary is somewhat broader than that of his Vorlage. Verse 22 illustrates the tendency to expand vocabulary beyond its Greek source and the lack of concern for establishing a single equivalent for each word: Si enim hoc egero (πράξω), mors mihi erit. Si autem non fecero (πράξω)… Despite the proximity of the two occurrences of πράξω, or perhaps precisely because of the proximity, it has been rendered with two different verbs. Vorlage

vs(s)

Lucifer

vs(s)

Lucifer

αἰώνιος

Sus 42; Dn 7:27

aeternus; sempiternus

Dn 7:14

perpetuus

ἀνίστημι

Sus 34; Dn 7:24 (2x)

adsurgo; exsurgo

Sus 60, Dn 7:5. 17

surgo

ἀνομία

Sus 38

iniquitas

Sus 57

iniustitia

Sus 39-40. 53. Sus 31. 32. 33. 35. 36. 38. 40. 42. 53. 55. 59. 64 Et at Sus 29. 47. 54; omission, e.g., at Sus 58. 65 Sus 22. 32. 49. 55. 66 Sus 59. 67 Sus 54. 58. 68 Sus 34. 62 63



Lucifer 215

Vorlage

vs(s)

Lucifer

vs(s)

Lucifer

ἀπόλλυμι

Sus 45, Dn 7:11

pereo (for Greek middle voice)

Dn 7:26

perdo

διαφέρω

Dn 7:3

magnitudine antecedo

Dn 7:7; 7:19

maior; ×

ἰσχύω

Sus 39

fortior sum

Dn 7:21

ualeo

κάλλος

Sus 32, cf. Sus 31

forma

Sus 56

species

κλαίω

Sus 33

fleo

Sus 35

lacrimor

λαός69

Sus 28 (2x). 34. 41. 47

plebs

Dn 7:14

populus

ὁμιλέω

Sus 57

concumbo

Sus 58

tracto

πάντες

Sus 33, Dn 7:7. 19

ceteri

Sus 30. 41. 42. 47. 60, Dn 7:14. 16. 23 (2x). 24. 27

omnes

περισσῶς

Dn 7:7 (2x)

uehementer; ×

Dn 7:19

ualde

πονηρεύομαι

Sus 43

malignus fingo

Sus 61

male facio

πράσσω

Sus 22

ago

Sus 22. 23

facio

πτερόν

Dn 7:4

pinna

Dn 7:6

ala

To these examples one may add most of the short words treated above. Conversely, he sometimes uses one Latin term for multiple Greek ones. It is noteworthy that the words surgo, perdo, concumbo, and ceteri do not only appear on the former chart, showing a tendency to expand the lexicon. They also constitute half of the vocabulary of the following chart, showing a reductive, simplifying tendency, a fact that underscores the lack of hard-and-fast lexical equivalents here. 69 Gryson concludes that the initial VL translation for λαός in Is was plebs, which would later be replaced by populus, but each with exceptions. See Esaias, II, 1653.

216

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

Lucifer

vs(s)

Vorlage

vs(s)

Vorlage

ceteri

Sus 33, 7:7. 19

πάντες

7:20

λοιποί

concumbo

Sus 37

ἀναπίπτω

Sus 3970 Sus 57

συγγίγνομαι ὁμιλέω

iniustus

Sus 32

παράνομος

Sus 53

ἄδικος

perdo

Sus 59

ἐξολεθρεύω

Dn 7:26

ἀπόλλυμι

regnum

Dn 7:12. 14. 26

ἀρχὴ

Dn 7:17. 18. 22. 23 (2x). 27 (2x)

βασιλεία

seco

Sus 55

σχίζω

Sus 59

πρίζω

surgo

Dn 7:4

ἐξαίρομαι

Sus 60, Dn 7:5. 17

ἀνίστημι

uideo

Dn 7:1, Sus 33. 38. 39

ὁράω

Dn 7,71 Sus 20. 54

θεωρέω

Besides these examples of reduction of vocabulary, a few bland verbs should be pointed out. At Sus 41 one encounters ἀναγγέλλω | dico, at Dn 7:24 ταπεινόω | humilem facio despite the availability of *humilio, and at Dn 7:23 κατεσθίω | manduco instead of a more emphatic verb like *deuoro. On the other hand, within the same material we find the skillful πονηρεύομαι | malignus fingo at Sus 43, and both chapters exhibit the appropriate, colorful παλαιόω | inuetero (Sus 52, Dn 7:25) rather than resorting to *ueterem facio. e. Noteworthy lemmata e.1. Concumbo, tracto Lucifer’s text renders Sus more salacious by translating the euphemism at Sus 37 ἀνέπεσε μετʼ αὐτῆς as concubuit cum ea. Per se ἀναπίπτω does not denote or connote sexual activity. Its translation by concumbo, considered literally, has the merit of corresponding closely to the Greek as a composite verb to indicate reclining. Yet unlike ἀναπίπτω, concumbo usually indicates lying for sexual intercourse. Given the 70 71

The text reads concurrentes. Its correction to concumbentes is treated on p. 217. Passim: Dn 7:2. 6. 7. 9. 11. 13. 21.



Lucifer 217

similar structure of the verbs and the context of alleged adultery, it fits quite well; its only shortcoming is to fail to reproduce the euphemistic quality of the Greek. In the following verses 38-39 Lucifer has uidentes iniquitatem adcurrimus ad eos et uidimus concurrentes (συγγινομένους) eos. As Jean Du Tillet noted already in his 1568 edition of Lucifer’s De Athanasio, concurrentes is a corruption of concumbentes.72 Whereas the translation of ἀναπίπτω by concumbo depends completely on the context of Sus, συγγίγνομαι is well attested to convey a being together for both social and sexual intercourse,73 so concumbo is quite appropriate as its translation. Concumbo recurs at Sus 57 et illae quidem timentes concumbebant (ὡμίλουν) uobiscum.74 As in Sus, ὁμιλέω has a sexual connotation in other biblical passages as well.75 Just after that instance of concumbo, Lucifer has the unexpected tracto for ὁμιλέω in Sus 58, as in verse 54 as well. Moreover, tracto and concumbo are not the only possibilities; we see a multitude of translation attempts outside of Susanna for rendering ὁμιλέω when it occurs as a sexual euphemism: (con)fabulor, sermonor and (con)loquor, all based on the literal meaning of the word while losing its special, Septuagintal connotation.76 It is tempting to consider tracto an outlier, different from those other three Latin renderings for ὁμιλέω in a sexual context. Was tracto a mechanical translation developed within the more common Christian context of the Greek word, that of preaching? If that were the case, the verb for biblical preaching and exegesis, a sacred action, would scandalously be on the lips of the two lechers, leaving the reader to interpret it as a reference to adultery. Furthermore, if it were intended to make its Vorlage from the more authoritative LXX transparent via a stock translation, one would expect its consistent use. Yet the rendering concumbo of Sus 57 obscures ὁμιλέω. These difficulties can be avoided by considering tracto a synonym to (con)fabulor, sermonor and (con)loquor. This, in fact, is the best interpretation, as will be shown presently. Indeed, apart from the euphemism, Lucifer’s use here of ὁμιλέω | tracto outside of a homiletic context reveals an under-documented77 use of the Latin word in 72 Lucifer of Cagliari, Ad Constantium, Constantini Magni F. Imp. Aug. Opuscula (ed. J. Du Tillet) (Parisiis 1568) scholia [10]. 73 Similar to συγγίγνομαι is Sus 20 γενοῦ μεθʼ ἡμῶν, esto nobiscum in Lucifer. Although συγγίγνομαι can have a sexual connotation, γενοῦ μεθʼ ἡμῶν is fully euphemistic; so too is the Latin. 74 EUS-V ep 2,8,2 (108,185) sic timentes filiae Israel concumbebant uobiscum. 75 Jdt 12:12 (con)fabulor in VL 7, VL 148, VL 150, VL 152. Prv 5:19 (con)fabulor in AM Jac 1,30 (390,4), AM Jb 4,2 (267,20), AM off 3,1 (153,8), PS-AU spe 129 (676,15), EUCH inst 1 (136,987); Prv 5:19 sermonor in PRIS tr 1 (26,15); Prv 5:19 (con)loquor in AU q 71,1 (201,28), HI Is 10 (1164,90). Likewise ὁμιλία, similar to the polyvalent English “intercourse,” in Ex 21:10 (consuetudo in VL 100; conuersatio in AU Ex 73,3 [109,1360. 1364]) means much more than a conversation with one’s wife. 76 See previous note. 77 Albert Blaise gives provides PAU-M Am 46,1 (116,1), from the early 5th c., to demonstrate the use of tracto to mean “discuter, converser, s’entretenir (à voix basse)” without further qualification; “Tracto,” Dictionnaire latin-français des auteurs chrétiens, 822. The example is appropriate but includes an object clause for tracto and could be enriched by the much earlier, absolute uses of tracto by Tertullian and Lucifer treated in this paragraph.

218

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

antiquity: its intransitive use to describe conversation, without any accompanying prepositional phrase to specify the topic of conversation. A similar instance can be found in Tertullian’s De fuga in persecutione, in which he alludes to ὁμιλέω with tracto in Act 24:26.78 He writes that Felix “in secreto tractauit cum [Paulo].” Even when Tertullian is citing sacred scripture directly, he is known for the freedom that he takes in choosing the word that most suits him, citing the same verse multiple times with varying vocabulary. How much more, then, must he have felt free to choose the word his readers would best understand when, not citing, alluding rather to ὁμιλέω in Act 24:26. The parallel, VL reading (con)loquor and Vg loquor confirm the interpretation of ὁμιλέω here as “to speak, converse”.79 Further support for this meaning of tracto comes from Lc 24:14-15, where VL 3 twice pairs ὁμιλέω | tracto. Here a prepositional phrase does specify the topic of conversation, but the meaning “to converse” for tracto still applies. The use of concumbo for both ἀναπίπτω and ὁμιλέω show that the translator (or reviser) of Lucifer’s Sus successfully identified the contextual implication of ἀναπίπτω as well as the particular biblical use of ὁμιλέω but, understandably, failed to find a similarly multivalent Latin equivalent. With tracto the literal sense of the Greek word is retained, and the euphemistic quality of the verb is increased since tracto without an object has absolutely no sexual connotation.80 On the one hand, by pairing concumbo / tracto Lucifer does capture sexual and verbal aspects of the semantic range of ὁμιλέω in the LXX. On the other hand, by using concumbo for ἀναπίπτω and συγγίγνομαι as well, he loses the euphemistic quality of the Greek, especially for ἀναπίπτω. e.2. Viridiarium One of Lucifer’s words stands out as particularly his own: uiridiarium, repeated 4x in Sus for παράδεισος.81 It is a rare but classical word, attested also in A-SS Per in early-3rd-c. Africa.82 Lucifer here diverges from Tertullian’s stadium and from VL 176 and 177, which both read paradisus in Sus. Indeed, paradisus is confirmed by Ambrose of Milan’s and Maximus of Turin’s Sus as a rival European VL reading.83 TE fu 12,9 (38,68). VL 50 and 51 read loquor, with Vg, at Act 24:26; VL 53 conloquor. Cf. also, at Act 20:11, VL 50 and 51, with Vg, ὁμιλέω | adloquor; VL 5 ὁμιλέω | fabulor; NIC vig 7 (310,16) ὁμιλέω | sermocinor. 80 Although Egidio Forcellini offers the definitions frequenter tangere, manu versare, attrectare, contrectare, and, in his English translations, to touch, handle, feel, stroke, these uses come with a direct object and do not refer to sexual contact anyway, with the possible exception of Plautus’s Miles Gloriosus, written centuries prior. See “Tracto,” TLLex VI, 131-132. 81 Vss 20. 36 (2x). 38. The only other VL reading of uirid(i)arium that has come to light is in VL 94 Ecl 2:5. Cf. W. Thiele (ed.), Sap, 221, n. 1. 82 A-SS Per 11,5 (144,9), 11,7 (144,13), 13,4 (150,8). 83 AM ep 34,5 (233,27); cf. *AM ep 56,16 (93,200). *MAX s Mu 57,2 (229,38); *MAX s Mu 58,1 (232,30). 78 79



Lucifer 219

Why does Lucifer’s European text not confirm the broader VL tradition of paradisus? It probably reads uiridiarium for the same reason that Tertullian wrote stadium: the loan-word paradisus does not do justice to the Greek text. Likewise, Augustine of Hippo glossed paradisus precisely with uiridarium (sic), and Ambrose with hortus, each of them having quoted paradisus in Sus.84 Lucifer’s uiridiarium achieved in the biblical text itself a more contextual translation, making glosses unnecessary. e.3. Presbyteri Lucifer’s text translates πρεσβύτεροι by presbyteri throughout Sus,85 a lexical choice confirmed by VL 176 and 177 as well. The witness of VL 176, 177, and Lucifer together cover thirteen occurrences of the word out of fifteen total in LXXθ’ Sus. Their unanimity, despite the lexical diversity attested in other parts of Lucifer’s scriptures,86 suggests that exemplars of Sus circulated in which presbyter was used exclusively.87 This agrees with Cyprian’s use of presbyteri in his allusion to the chapter. e.4. Synagoga Lucifer translates the two occurrences of συναγωγή in LXXθ’ (Sus 41. 60) with its Latin cognate, which agrees with VL 176vid at Sus 60. Although Tertullian and Cyprian do not report their translation of this word in the context of Sus, elsewhere they do attest synagoga, as well as congregatio, as their biblical rendering of συναγωγή.88 Lucifer’s scriptures usually read synagoga for its cognate, and this is true of Sus in particular.89 As with παράδεισος and πρεσβύτεροι, the translation of συναγωγή *AU s 343,1 (28,9); AM ep 34,5 (233,27). Cf. *AM ep 56,16 (93,200) and C. Gerzaguet, “Ambroise de Milan et le texte des Ecritures,” Le miel des Ecritures (ed. S. Marculescu Badilita – L. Mellerin) (CBiblin 1; Turnhout 2015) 249-267, 252. 85 Sus 28. 34. 36. 41. 61. 86 His most frequent biblical word for πρεσβύτεροι is seniores: Jos 7:6 in LUC par 3 (199,22); Jos 7:23 in LUC par 3 (200,60); Mt 26:47 in LUC par 25 (244,43); Mt 27:3 in LUC par 26 (245,20); Act 4:23 in LUC par 16 (226,66). He uses the same Latin term once for οἱ ἀντεχόμενοι and once for ἡ γερουσία: Jr 2:8 in LUC con 8 (176,14); Dt 19:12 in LUC Ath 1,7 (14,43). On the other hand, besides the five occurrences of presbyter in Sus it appears a few times in his biblical texts, always translating its Greek cognate: Lv 19:32 in LUC Ath 1,4 (8,19); Dt 31:9 in LUC Ath 1,9 (16,3); 4 Rg 23:1 in LUC par 7 (207,32). 87 The bulk of early Latin evidence agrees with Lucifer: *FO-A (217,2494), AM ep 56,3 (85,33), *PRIS tr 3,63 (49,24), *A-SS Pionius 12 (130), *AR Gr 18 (228,104), *PHY Y 8,10 (108), and *CHRO s 35,3 (160,41). On the other hand, Zeno of Verona at *ZE 1,1,17 (12,169) and *ZE 1,36,8 (98,211) alludes to the seniores, as does Eusebius of Vercelli at *EUS-V ep 2,8,2 (108,181) just before citing VL Sus. 88 Synagoga | συναγωγή: Ex 16:3 in TE je 5,2 (1261); Ps 21:17 in TE Marc 4,42,4 (514,36); Ps 81:1 in CY te 2,6 (37,52); Ex 12:3. 6 in PS-CY pa 1 (249,10); Nm 20:25 in CY ep 67,4 (452,75). Congregatio | συναγωγή: Gn 1:9 in TE Her 29,2 (156,22); So 3:8 in CY te 3,106 (173,5). Cf. congregatio | ἐπισυναγωγή: 2 Th 2:1 in TE res 24,12 (952,34). 89 Synagoga | συναγωγή: 3 Rg 12:20 in LUC reg 3 (141,43). Cf. synagoga: Nm 25:7-8 in *LUC par 1 (195,34); but conuentus | συναγωγή: 1 Mcc 2:42 in LUC con 9 (177,2) and LUC par 14 (221,21). 84

220

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

by its Latin cognate risks misinterpretation by Latin Christians unfamiliar with the enormous semantic range of LXX συναγωγή. Synagoga immediately conjures up the Jewish congregation of the synagogue contemporary to the Latin-speaking recipient of the text. Although this is an anachronism, it does not significantly inhibit understanding of the text, as might paradisus and presbyteri. f. Challenging vocabulary The one glaring translation miscarriage in Lucifer’s Sus-Dn comes in Sus 61-62 ἐποίησαν αὐτοῖς ὃν τρόπον ἐπονηρεύσαντο τῷ πλησίον, ποιῆσαι κατὰ τὸν νόμον Μωυσῆ, καὶ ἀπέκτειναν αὐτούς | fecerunt illis quemadmodum ipsi male proximo facere uoluerunt, secundum legem Moysi, et occiderunt. The correspondence between τῷ πλησίον, ποιῆσαι and proximo facere suggests that facere is meant to translate ποιῆσαι, but facere is already part of the translation for ἐπονηρεύσαντο in male… facere uoluerunt. Voluerunt ranks among the freest renderings of the material, showing more creativity in response to greater difficulty. We saw that the loan-words presbyteri and synagoga are preserved at the risk of misleading the Latin assembly, whereas conversely παράδεισος is consistently rendered uiridiarium rather than paradisus. Those are evidence of the translator’s (or reviser’s) abilities and limitations. Unlike Jerome, the translator was not skilled enough to preserve the play on the words for trees and cutting, σχῖνος / σχίζω | πρῖνος / πρίζω, for which he uses lentiscus / seco | ilex / seco.90 On the other hand, he rose to the lesser challenge of pairing ἀναίτιος / αἴτιος by the morphologically parallel innocens / nocens.91 2.4. Syntax a. Hellenisms and a Semitism Here follow some of the more prominent Hellenisms. Present participles, for example, are used even when the verbs’ actions must be prior to the main verb, as in the example from Sus 48.92 90 Sus 54-55. 58-59. Jerome, however, made two attempts to preserve the wordplay. The VL mastic and holm-oak trees in Sus 54. 58, σχῖνος / πρῖνος | lentiscus / ilex, previously bore no resemblance to the VL verbs of cutting in Sus 55. 59, σχίζω / πρίζω | seco / seco. Nevertheless, for the Vg Jerome calqued the trees as scinus / prinus to more closely match at least the first of the Latin verbs, scindo / seco. Note that he has opted to follow the Greek rather literally instead of employing a more idiomatic play on Latin words. He possessed the skill for the latter, for in the prologue to Vg Dn he proposes deriving ab arbore ilice… “ilico pereas” and a lentisco “in lentem te comminuat angelus” uel “non lente pereas”; HI pr Dn (1341,28). 91 Sus 53. 92 Cf. p. 223.



Lucifer 221

Vorlage

Lucifer

Hellenistic aspect

Sus 43

σὺ ἐπίστασαι ὅτι

tu scis quoniam

subordination rather than accusativus cum infinitivo

Sus 4893

οὐκ ἀνακρίναντες οὐδὲ τὸ σαφὲς ἐπιγνόντες κατεκρίνατε

non interrogantes neque uerum cognoscentes damnastis

present participles with perfective meaning, for Greek aorist94

τοῦ ἀλλοιῶσαι

mutare

infinitive of purpose

vs(s)

7:25

At Dn 7:19 Lucifer preserves a Semitism passed through the Greek: (θηρίον) παρὰ πάντα τὰ θηρία φοβερὸν περισσῶς | (bestia) praeter ceteras bestias horribilis ualde. Note the use of the positive-degree adjective horribilis with the intensifying adverb ualde rather than a synthetic comparative (-ior) or superlative (-issimus).95 Furthermore, in the Aramaic, Greek, and Latin this verse has a preposition (Latin praeter) to introduce the lesser object; this feature does not stand out in Late Latin, which does not always employ the ablative of comparison. b. Vulgarisms One finds a pair of improper sequences of tenses as well as one use of the comparative for the positive degree in Lucifer’s Sus-Dn. The error (by classical standards) in the sequence of tenses is clear at Sus 39, for the erroneous, perfect prosilierit is preceded by the parallel, correct, imperfect esset. The perfect Greek infinitive ἐκπεπηδηκέναι likely contributed to the use of a Latin perfect subjunctive. At Dn 7:11 there is no Greek verb to excuse present-tense conburatur. Finally, minus for μικρόν at Dn 7:8 resembles Cyprian’s use of the superlative for the positive. In the case of minus, however, the translator may have simply taken a degree of contextually appropriate liberty. Cf. Sus 23. 39. 48. 55. For the perfective use of present participles of verbs of motion already at the time of Cicero, see E. Laughton, The Participle in Cicero (OCPM; London 1964) 40; cf. Hofmann – Szantyr, Lateinische Syntax, 386-387. For a treatment of the Latin New Testament translations of aorist participles, see Valgiglio, Antiche versioni, 244-259. 95 There is no form *horribillimus, and *horribilissimus only made its debut nearly a millennium after Lucifer. The comparative horribilior does occur in Caes. Gall. 5,14,2 (73,2). Given the general liberty of VL translators to use non-classical forms, and given their use of the superlative in place of true, non-Semitic positives (see p. 151, n. 67), it is noteworthy that Lucifer employs the positive (praeter…) horribilis for (παρά…) φοβερόν. Cf. O. García de la Fuente, “El superlativo en la Biblia latina,” EM 46 (1978) 347-367, 349-350. 93 94

222

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

vs(s)

Vorlage

Lucifer

vulgar aspect

Sus 39

οὐκ ἠδυνήθημεν… διὰ τὸ ἰσχύειν αὐτὸν ὑπὲρ ἡμᾶς καὶ ἀνοίξαντα τὰς θύρας ἐκπεπηδηκέναι

non potuimus… quod fortior nobis esset et quod aperiens ostia prosilierit

sequence of tenses: prosilierit for *prosiliret

7:8

μικρόν

minus

comparative for positive96

7:11

ἐθεώρουν… ἕως… ἐδόθη εἰς καῦσιν πυρός

uidebam… quoadusque… datum est ut conburatur

sequence of tenses: conburatur for *conbureretur

c. The plus sum Like Cyprian, Lucifer sometimes has sum where the Greek lacks a verb. vs(s)

Vorlage

Lucifer

Sus 42

Ὁ θεὸς ὁ αἰώνιος ὁ τῶν κρυπτῶν γνώστης ×

Deus aeternus, qui occultorum cognitor es

Sus 45

παιδαρίου νεωτέρου, ᾧ ὄνομα × Δανιηλ

pueri adulescentis, cui nomen erat Danihel

Sus 47

τίς × οὗτος ὁ λόγος, ὃν σὺ λελάληκας;

quis est iste sermo quem tu locutus es?

d. Participles Concerning Lucifer’s verbs, overall his texts ably render the Greek with Latin equivalents, usually matching the tenses as expected. Frequent active voice, aorist participles in Sus present a difficulty since they lack a literal equivalent Latin form. These are usually rendered by the present participle. 96

Cf. Rönsch, Itala, 415-418; Vineis, “Studio (part 1),” 216-222.



Lucifer 223

Vorlage

Lucifer

πράξασαν

facienti

ἰδόντες

uidentes

Sus 48

στάς

stans

Sus 48

ἀνακρίναντες

interrogantes

Sus 48

ἐπιγνόντες

cognoscentes

Sus 55

λαβών

accipiens

vs(s) Sus 23 Sus 38. 39

By contrast, in Sus 40 ταύτης δὲ ἐπιλαβόμενοι ἐπηρωτῶμεν | hanc autem adprehensam interrogauimus the translator skillfully makes use of the perfect passive Latin participle and thereby preserves the past tense rather than matching the participle’s gender, number, and voice by *adprehendentes.97 An active genitive absolute is easily rendered by the ablative absolute, as in Sus 36 περιπατούντων ἡμῶν | ambulantibus nobis and Sus 53 λέγοντος τοῦ κυρίου | dicente Domino. For the more challenging passive, however, the translator again shows his flexibility, this time by recourse to hypotaxis in Sus 45 ἀπαγομένης αὐτῆς | cum duceretur. e. Asyndeton The many minuses in Lucifer’s text were highlighted when it was being compared to VL 176. Besides the accidental omissions of Greek and Latin scribes, some may have been due to intentional asyndeton, even by Lucifer himself.98 In Sus 20, the technique is appropriate to capture the lecherous urgency of the wicked judges’ scheme. It is not clear whether Lucifer’s biblical quotation begins with qui or ostia, but at any rate two certain minuses occur in the middle of the sentence.

97 One encounters the very same technique in the Vg at Act 9:27: Βαρναβᾶς δὲ ἐπιλαβόμενος αὐτόν | Barnabas autem adprehensum illum. 98 See p. 175, n. 5.

224

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

Sus 20

Lucifer

(καὶ εἶπον) Ἰδοὺ αἱ θύραι τοῦ παραδείσου

(qui dixerunt:) “× ostia uiridiarii

κέκλεινται, καὶ οὐδεὶς θεωρεῖ ἡμᾶς, καὶ ἐν

clausa sunt, × nemo nos uidet, × in

ἐπιθυμίᾳ σού ἐσμεν·

concupiscentia tui sumus.”

f. Nouns added for clarity Besides the minuses there are pluses as well, especially the addition of nouns for clarity in confusing Dn 7. All of these instances are shared with VL 176. vs

Vorlage

Lucifer and VL 176

7:6

τούτου

hanc bestiam

7:7

αὐτό

haec bestia

7:18

ὑψίστου

altissimi Dei

7:20

τοῦ ἑτέρου

altero cornu

7:22

ὑψίστου

altissimi Dei

7:25

τὸν ὕψιστον… ὑψίστου

altissimum Deum… altissimi Dei

7:27

ὑψίστου

altissimi Dei

g. Relative clauses Not surprisingly, Lucifer’s text resembles Cyprian’s in its use of relative clauses to render Greek constructions without direct Latin equivalents.99 For example, at Dn 7:24 τοὺς ἔμπροσθεν αὐτοῦ | qui ante eum fuerunt shows the appropriate use of the Latin relative for the Greek article. Although this technique is often used for an article followed by a participle, in this case a verb had to be added in Latin, namely fuerunt. For the similar construction at Dn 7:7 uideo is the added verb, suggested by the chapter’s frequent introduction of visions by uidebam: τὰ θηρία τὰ ἔμπροσθεν αὐτοῦ | bestiis quae antea uisae sunt.

99

See p. 153.



Lucifer 225

2.5. Theological intervention Finally, with regard to the translation technique implied by Lucifer’s texts, it is worth noting that there appears to be no systematic theological intervention.100 That only serves to place in greater relief his reading κριτήριον ἐκάθισε | in iudicium sedit at Dn 7:10, which for Pseudo-Cyprian (ad iudicium sedit) fit within a context of other theological interventions. Lucifer generally does not share those but instead follows the Greek. His in iudicium sedit, like ueniens uenit at Dn 7:13, seems to be a hold-over from a more primitive stage of the text. 3. Conclusion Lucifer has provided us with nearly two biblical chapters for analysis, enough to identify patterns and draw conclusions about his Sus-Dn. The relationship of Lucifer’s texts to VL 176 merited an extended analysis due to their great similarity and the availability of both witnesses for the same chapters. Not surprisingly, each witness suffered corruptions; the two also share peculiarities that would have been corrected, had a thorough, literal reviser edited either branch of transmission. Their differences were numerous enough to identify patterns of divergence such as Lucifer’s agreement with Greek 541 against VL 176, and Lucifer’s retention of the ancient reading ueniens uenit at Dn 7:13 against the LXXθ’-derived reading of VL 176. All these things support the case for the greater antiquity of Lucifer than VL 176, to which was added an argument based on their differences in vocabulary. Viridiarium and tracto were the principal pieces of lexical evidence used to bolster the case, against VL 176’s allegedly later paradisus and con. So, the hypothesis was advanced that Lucifer’s text is the more ancient of the two, probably dating back as far as earlyto mid-3rd-c. Africa, and that this text type gave rise to a younger, “corrected” version like VL 176. Besides VL 176, we saw that many ancient patristic works shared readings with Lucifer, especially Irenaeus’s Adversus haereses, Priscillian of Avila’s Tractatus, a letter by Hesychius of Salona, and two works by Lactantius. Whereas Irenaeus’s Latin translation is remarkable for its agreements with Lucifer against the literal Armenian translation of Adversus haereses, Priscillian (and Hilary) provides evidence corroborating Lucifer’s manuscripts but against the editions of the same. Remarkable agreements with Hesychius serve to demonstrate the use of Lucifer’s text type across a vast swath of territory, and Lactantius’s early date 100 That is, excepting the intervention at Dn 7:25 in his second citation of the verse, soon after the longer, presumably more faithful one had already been given. See pp. 41-42.

226

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

helps to understand the antiquity of certain Luciferian readings as well as their geographical diffusion. Finally, a host of further VL witnesses agree with Lucifer in single words or phrases. We saw that LXXθ’ provides Lucifer’s Vorlage and that he shares variant readings especially with the group comprised of Greek Q-230-233-541. This relationship hints at continuity from the time of Cyprian’s Sus-Dn-Bel, for his briefer material matched witnesses from the same group. A careful examination of the potential Greek sources for oblatus est ei at Dn 7:13 led to its proposed alignment with Greek Qc’s προσηνέχθη αὐτῷ, rather than the original Greek Q (and Greek B-46′) reading προσήχθη αὐτῷ, as the Greek edition aligns it. Although there were just a few items to treat in the morphological domain, one of them proved helpful in identifying a shared feature with Hilary of Poitiers, namely sedis for *sedes. Lexical analysis revealed the richness of Lucifer’s expansive lexicon vis-à-vis the Greek, though a less-prominent, simultaneous tendency to contract vocabulary can be observed in the same material. Each of these tendencies shows that his translation does not simply employ one-to-one Latin equivalents to its Greek source. The text proves its lexigraphical worth by providing an under-documented use of anticipo. Although more challenging vocabulary and syntax sometimes led to creative, idiomatic translations (e.g. uiridiarium), occasionally the vocabulary is bland or the text obscure. Given that the work is a Late Latin text intended for the masses, it is no surprise to find lexical innovations alien to classical literature, and even vulgarisms. In any case, the translation follows its Greek source word for word more often than not. Such a translation is bound to contain Hellenisms, especially considering the greater authority of the LXX. Semitisms, already present in the source text, enrich Lucifer’s Sus-Dn as well, even though they are at times difficult to decipher. In syntactical analysis, Lucifer yielded peculiar readings by his typical use of asyndeton and his addition of clarifying nouns, especially Deus. Also adding clarity are his text’s additions of the verbal copula, sum, when it lacks a direct Greek equivalent. The use of present participles for aorist ones is common, though the lack of a precise Latin equivalent sometimes confuses the narrative. The current chapter by no means extracts all valuable conclusions to be drawn from Lucifer’s Sus and Dn 7. Nevertheless, it is hoped that by now the worth of these texts is clear. They constitute a major portion of our evidence for tracing the history of VL Sus-Dn-Bel, showing both continuity and discontinuity with earlier texts. They are the most extensive patristic witness prior to that seismic shift soon to change the course of the Latin biblical tradition, Jerome’s translations and the beginning of the replacement of the VL.

Chapter 7 CONCLUSION

The careful evaluation of citations of Sus-Dn-Bel from Tertullian to Lucifer allows us now to consider the whole sweep of this textual history. As stated at the outset, it is a history as partial as the evidence; we must content ourselves with patristic citations that, although they do represent a wide array of dates and provenances, still reproduce but a small fraction of the biblical book. This conclusion first recounts the story of the interrelations of the VL texts before turning to that of their relations to Greek ones. Then the Latin linguistic evidence is summarized, which played a key role in the two text-critical steps just described. Finally, this study draws to a close with one last overview of its results. 1. History of the Latin texts in relation to one another Each chapter began with the comparison of a Father’s citations to the rest of the extant witnesses to the same passages. The Adversus Iudaeos of Pseudo-Tertullian in North Africa contains a citation dated to the year 197 that bears significant resemblance to the De pascha computus a half-century later. A comparison of these texts supported the hypothesis that the similarity is not incidental, but rather that the earlier, freer text type was revised to produce the later one more closely aligned with the Greek. Tertullian himself in the early 3rd c. generally writes citations for which we have no parallels, and yet a key phrase of his, filius hominis ueniens uenit (Dn 7:13), persists up to Lucifer’s time and at least into the 5th c., even against the tendency to conform the Latin text to LXXθ’. Although Vetus Latina is a collective term to encompass what a few prefer to call Veteres Latinae, here we find a few words of a theologically important text that represent a singular VL tradition spanning centuries and continents. Even so, it seems more likely that Tertullian translated passages of Greek Dn ad hoc rather than relying on an already existing written translation. Had he done so, we might expect to find more similarities between him and later Carthaginians. The evidence from Cyprian’s Carthage supports the widely held theory of the African origin of the VL, for many of his readings and contemporary Pseudo-Cyprianic ones agree with those of later writers, both Africans and Europeans. The agreements are

228

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

usually short, but there are enough shared particularities to posit a shared textual history among them. One finds these agreements in liturgical texts, VL manuscripts, and a whole array of Fathers. Particularly interesting here are the Cyprianic agreements with the Latin translation of Irenaeus’s Adversus haereses and with Lucifer, for these latter two have their own remarkable agreements as well. Although these texts’ differences must not be minimized, their similarities allow us to tell the story of an African text that spread far into Europe, being revised along the way. Did this story begin during Cyprian’s time? Is that when a complete written translation of Sus-Dn-Bel was first produced in Latin? Although we know that at least the VL Gospels had already been written and revised by then, we have only a hint of evidence for that possibility concerning Dn. Namely, the development of Dn 9:24-27 from the Adversus Iudaeos to the De pascha computus could be interpreted as representing two redactional stages, but it is by no means certain that the former work cites an already written translation of Sus-Dn-Bel. Limited by the evidence, we can only affirm 1) the similarity between these two North African texts, 2) the likelihood that Pseudo-Tertullian’s text type of a key passage of Dn 9 led more or less directly to its revision as cited in the De pascha computus, and 3) the production of the biblical book’s Latin version by the 240s. This formative period from the late 2nd to mid-3rd c. in Africa is also that of the Letter of Barnabas in Latin, which seems to depart from its Greek Vorlage in favor of VL Dn. From mid-3rd-c. Carthage until Lucifer’s citations ca. 360, there is only a modest quantity of extant biblical quotes of Sus-Dn-Bel with which to fill in this period of textual history. The very few citations by Victorinus of Poetovium show no sign of alignment with other VL witnesses to this book. As was the case for Tertullian, his knowledge of the Greek language allows the hypothesis that he translated ad hoc. Lactantius stands as an early-4th-c. witness agreeing with Lucifer and VL 176, but one cannot extrapolate from a mere two verses to construct a theory about Lactantius’s entire biblical book. Although Fortunatianus transmits but one partial verse in direct citation, along with some allusions, this evidence matches some other VL witnesses. Writing not long before Lucifer, he probably knew a revision of the text of Sus-Dn-Bel that originated in Africa and survived at least into the 5th c. Lucifer marks the end of the history here written, but not of VL Sus-Dn-Bel in general. Although his citations (ca. 360) come from just two biblical chapters, they are the most extensive patristic ones of any period before or after. Their great similarity to VL 176 immediately stands out, which puts the less numerous disagreements in relief. The comparison of these two texts has led to the cautious hypothesis for the greater antiquity of Lucifer’s, one that originated in North Africa and underwent subsequent revision. His Sus and Dn 7 belong to the same textual history as the Cyprianic texts, and, like his, share readings with many Fathers. Like Cyprian, Lucifer agrees with the Irenaeus’s Adversus haereses in Latin, sometimes even when Lucifer and the Adversus haereses disagree with the polemical work’s rather literal Armenian



Conclusion 229

translation from Greek. Along with Lactantius, the Adversus haereses helps us to link the textual tradition from Cyprian to Lucifer. To the east of Lucifer we also find agreements with Hesychius of Salona (Croatia); to the west of him agreements with Priscillian of Avila (Spain) and Hilary of Poitiers (Gaul); to the north is Eusebius of Vercelli (Italy); and to the south are North African Victor of Vita and Pseudo-Vigilius. These latter two match Lucifer’s text even late into the 5th c. In short, by his day a family of manuscripts of VL Sus-Dn-Bel had spread around North Africa and much of Europe and persisted well into the 5th c. 2. History of the Latin texts in relation to the Greek ones The material considered also sheds light on the circulation of the biblical book in Greek over the period considered. The Latin texts, being rather literal, usually align with one or more Greek witnesses of LXXo’ or, much more often, LXXθ’. This, in turn, helps the Latin textual critic to identify patterns of each witness’s implied Vorlage, and then compare and contrast their depedence on various branches of the Greek textual transmission. Tertullian most consistently relied on LXXo’-type readings, but even he departed from the more primitive Greek text in a significant number of readings that agree with the MT, LXXθ’, or both of these. Thus, already during the earliest stage of the Latin evidence the shift away from LXXo’ had begun. Tertullian shares readings with Justin Martyr and John Chrysostom (in Greek), as well as the principal LXXo’ witness, Greek 967, and two LXXθ’ witnesses of the Greek Q group: Greek Q and Greek 230. The Greek Q group has correlations to VL Sus-Dn-Bel during the whole period under consideration. In addition to the already numerous Greek witnesses matching numerous citations by Tertullian, one may add the LXXθ’-based readings of the Adversus Iudaeos attributed to him. Indeed, it seems that the citations from this work’s first half even preceded the authentic citations by a few years. This suggests the circulation of both Greek text types in North Africa at the turn of the 3rd c., which is not surprising since this was the beginning of the time of Greek-speaking Christianity’s transition from LXXo’ to LXXθ’. In fact, the Adversus Iudaeos, of which the scriptural lemmata do not always match the citations within its following commentary, implies knowledge of more than one text type. It tends to agree with Alexandrian readings (especially Greek 410) and Lucianic ones within the LXXθ’ tradition, its Lucianic readings always being supported by John Chrysostom and Theodoret. The Adversus Iudaeos has an agreement with Greek 233 of the Greek Q group that supports an emendation of the Latin edition by removing the editor’s conjectured plus. The Letter of Barnabas, one might add, might be just as ancient as these (or closer to Cyprian’s time), which once departs from its Greek source in favor of a LXXθ’-based Latin reading.

230

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

A few decades after Tertullian, the North African readings continue to agree sometimes with LXXo’ and sometimes with LXXθ’. In this material from Cyprian and contemporaries the proportion of LXXθ’ readings, however, has increased. The textual situation continues to be complex, for we have Latin verses from this period that mix or even conflate the two Greek texts, in addition to those that align with only one or the other. The abundance of Greek manuscripts allows us to discern mixing of the two types, but the poverty of Latin material prevents us from asserting whether or not the Latin scribes (or translators) themselves contributed to additional mixing. This stage of VL Sus-Dn-Bel, like the previous one, attests relations to various witnesses and manuscript groupings of the Greek transmission. Agreements with Greek Q and two of its associated minuscules, Greek 230 and 541, stand out. Besides these, Greek 26 of the B group and the codex mixtus 588 have multiple agreements with the Latin, as do Justin Martyr and Hippolytus. Around the turn of the 4th c. Victorinus of Poetovium still has LXXo’ readings alongside those from LXXθ’, perhaps all of them being his own ad hoc translations into Latin. In the middle of the century, Fortunatianus cites a LXXθ’-based text that seems to agree with Greek Q or one of its minuscules a couple of times, and once resembles Pseudo-Athanasius. That brings us to Lucifer, whose text implies a Vorlage thoroughly within the LXXθ’ stream of transmission. The few short, isolated LXXo’ readings it does have can be explained as the kind so often found in the Greek manuscripts of LXXθ’, “contaminated” by the other text. The Greek Q-230-233-541 group accounts for the most shared readings that depart from LXXθ’, but it has less frequent correlations with many other LXXθ’ groupings. The Greek Q group, therefore, is the one that most consistently shares variant readings with VL Sus-Dn-Bel from Tertullian to Lucifer. Nevertheless, one must not underestimate the complexity of this textual history in relation to the Greek texts, in which one also finds correlations to many other groupings. 3. History of the Latin texts’ linguistic characteristics Too little attention has been dedicated to the VL within Latin philology, but the present work can be counted among those studies attempting to fill the lacuna. At each stage of the textual development we have encountered remarkable linguistic phenomena, which can always be related to the wider field of Latin studies, especially that research attentive to the sub-literary registers of the language. Perhaps Tertullian’s citations are the exception here, for his Latin has been well studied, including his frequent biblical quotes. Nevertheless, the present study has identified new opportunities for integrating his Dn citations into Latin studies. The dearth of contemporary, Christian, North African writings often leaves us lacking



Conclusion 231

the context to determine just how innovative or singular Tertullian’s expressions are. His famulabunda, translating λατρεύουσα, is a hapax legomenon. His use of stadium to indicate a garden path (or the garden containing the path) derives from LXXo’ Sus 37 στάδιον; the Latin use has no parallel known to us. The noun recogitatus, nearly exclusive to Tertullian in antiquity, correlates especially to διανοέομαι of Dn 9-10. His translation of the same verb by recogito for its occurrence in Plato’s Phaedo adds more certainty to the identification. Here the broader linguistic study comes to bear on the vexed problem of whether or not Tertullian cited the Latin scriptures or translated his own citations. His use of recogitatus counts in favor of the latter hypothesis. In Pseudo-Tertullian’s Adversus Iudaeos we also encounter a hapax legomenon: conuallatio for περιτεῖχος. It is not surprising to encounter the -io form in a biblical citation saturated with them (cf. ὅρασις | uisio; ἔξοδος | profectio; etc.), a trait evident in Cyprian’s time as well. Furthermore, the liberty of the Adversus Iudaeos’s citations vis-à-vis the extant Greek texts of the same passages suggests that we cannot dismiss conuallatio as translationese. That is, we must assume the word’s intelligibility for his intended readership. The same goes for the 1st-conjugation verb breuio, even though we only know of its use by two previous writers, both from the 1st c. That the word resurfaces a century later in our written record suggests that it may have remained in use in spoken Latin. This is an example of how the earliest Latin biblical translations gave occasion for unwittingly committing to writing linguistic phenomena that otherwise would remain obscure or unknown. The change of voice from Greek verbs to their Latin translations also characterizes this material, a feature that continues to be attested in Cyprian’s time. The next, Cyprianic period of the mid-3rd c. can be understood as one in continuity with the Adversus Iudaeos of the late 2nd. The preponderance of nouns in -io continues. Translations such as ἀνήρ | homo (not *uir) and audio with the genitive instead of an accusative object continue to distinguish VL Sus-Dn-Bel from Latin’s classical literary register. These characteristics, however, should not mislead us to posit an incompetent translator. On the contrary, each of the “vulgarisms” just listed is attested prior to Cyprian and should be presumed intelligible to his Christian congregation and those being evangelized. Although the translator of Latin citations does choose some bland verbs for their more expressive Greek equivalents, he generally shows good understanding of his source. He also departs from his source in changing the voice of a whole series of verbs. Although theological intervention in the text is not common for VL Sus-Dn-Bel of this period or the others, the Pseudo-Cyprianic Ad Novatianum bears one such theological (or perhaps literary) intervention that was detected with the aid of linguistic analysis. The authentic Cyprianic citations bear a couple of pluses in proximity to references to God, which may be pious additions without basis in the Greek.

232

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

Lucifer, for his part, reveals under-documented uses of anticipo, with the meaning “to come before, arrive”. At Dn 7:13 he writes that the Son of Man anticipauit (ἔφθασε) et oblatus est [uetusto dierum], then at 7:22 he writes anticipauit tempus for ὁ καιρὸς ἔφθασε. Only thanks to Lucifer’s citation of Dn 7:13 do we have an example of the Latin verb’s intransitive use in the context of coming before someone in the spatial sense. Similarly, Lucifer’s uiridiarium (παράδεισος) is little-attested in ancient Latin literature, which makes the word’s appearance in an early-3rd-c., North African passion account all the more meaningful for Lucifer’s text. Namely, it adds lexical support for the African origin of his Sus-Dn-Bel, which the text-critical analysis also bolstered. Lucifer’s text tends to add clarifying nouns, especially Deus, and also adds the verbal copula sum, all without direct Greek equivalents known to us. By contrast, the use of present participles for Greek aorist ones sometimes has the potential to confuse the reader. Lucifer’s material does contain vulgarisms, but at a far lower rate than Cyprian’s. Finally, Lucifer himself is probably responsible for the asyndeton present in these citations when it is particular to him and lacks any warrant in the extant Greek texts, for he frequently employs that rhetorical device. Over all these periods of textual evidence one encounters remarkable linguistic traits, morphological, lexical, and syntactical. The general approach to VL texts as belonging to a lower register than the classical literary one certainly applies here, even though the translator(s) and revisers understood their Greek sources and expressed them in intelligible Latin. Indeed, it is likely that these texts to some extent reflect Latin as it was spoken in those milieus, and not just by the poor but also by the educated classes; the translators themselves belonged to this latter grouping since they successfully carried out their task. Part of their work’s value for us is their transmission of a register of Latin not often committed to writing. 4. Overview One last table will conclude the presentation of the research undertaken. It summarizes the results, presenting a synthetic view of the development of the text over time. It includes one row for each of the four major chapters, omitting the one dedicated to minor witnesses. The omission is due principally to the paucity of their citations but also to the variation from one minor witness to the other. So the witnesses are, in chronological order: 1) the Adversus Iudaeos attributed to Tertullian, 2) Tertullian himself, 3) Cyprian and contemporary Pseudo-Cyprianic works, and 4) Lucifer.



Conclusion 233

witness

relation to VL texts

relation to Vorlage

linguistic character

[TE] Jud 1-8

considerable affinity with PS-CY pa

predominately LXXθ’; three LXXo’ readings, of which two also attested in LXXθ’ manuscripts; affinity with Greek Lucianic group (always supported by Chr. and Tht.), the A group, 233 (Q group)

many nouns in -io; one hapax; changes of voice from Greek to Latin

TE

minimal agreement overall; filius hominis 198-212 ueniens uenit continued North into 5th c.; affinity with Africa [TE] Jud 9-14 and CY

predominately LXXo’, but departures from it that agree with the MT and LXXθ’; affinity with Greek 967, Q-230, Iust., Chr.

translated with Tertullian’s usual liberty and variation, yet lexical consistency is more frequent than variation; one hapax, one little-attested word, stadium with an unexpected meaning

CY, PS-CY Nov, pa, mart

modest agreement overall; PS-CY pa probably revises [TE] Jud; strong affinity with IR, OPT; affinity with VL 175, 243-256 VL 176, TE, [TE] Jud North 1-8, TE, LUC, liturgical Africa manuscripts; CY te cited by FIR, PAC, PS-AU alt, EVA-G

isolated verses based on LXXo’; many verses on LXXθ’; some mixed LXXo’/LXXθ’ verses; affinity with Greek Q-230541, 26 (B group), 588 (mixtus), Iust., Hippol.

many nouns in -io; many vulgarisms, Hellenisms, and Semitisms; changes of voice from Greek to Latin; some lexical doublets and pious additions; some bland verbs and other imprecisions

LUC

thoroughly LXXθ’, with short LXXo’ readings probably deriving from “contaminated” LXXθ’ manuscripts; affinity with Greek Q-230-233-541, less often A and B groups, still less the various other groups

one little-attested word, another with an otherwise unattested meaning; more lexical expansion than contraction; nouns added for clarity; some vulgarisms, Hellenisms, and Semitisms; asyndeton; one botched translation of a difficult passage

ca. 197 North Africa

strong affinity with VL 176 (probably younger 357-361 than LUC), IR, HesySouth chius of Salona; affinity Italy with PS-CY Nov, LAC, (but AM, NIC, HIL, EUS-V, written PRIS, RUF, PS-VIG in exile) Var, VIC-V, CHRY lap, liturgical manuscripts

234

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

The last of these Fathers writes a few decades before Jerome’s translation of Dn-SusBel, which would soon begin its displacement of the VL translation in all its pluriformity. Jerome considered his enterprise of adding another Latin biblical translation to be legitimate, justifying it in one instance on the basis of the multiplicity of Greek biblical texts. In his prologue to the first of the Major Prophets, Isaiah, he writes: … a fastidiosis lectoribus precor, ut quomodo Graeci post Septuaginta translatores Aquilam et Symmachum et Theodotionem legunt uel ob studium doctrinae suae uel ut Septuaginta magis ex conlatione eorum intellegant, sic et isti saltem unum post priores habere dignentur interpretem.1

Jerome could not have predicted that his work would so thoroughly marginalize VL Sus-Dn-Bel that no complete copy would survive — that he would not be unum post priores interpretem but rather become the Latin church’s unicum interpretem of the Major Prophets and most of the Old Testament. That, however, is another story. At the end of this one, ca. 360, the Latin church’s uncontested version of the Book of Daniel is VL Sus-Dn-Bel, in all its peculiarities and regional variations. It would continue to thrive at least into the 5th-c. In fact, this study proves that it survived in patristic citations, fragmentary biblical manuscripts, and liturgical manuscripts — a stock of biblical text awaiting further exploration.

1

HI pr Is (1096,17).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adams, J. N., “Late Latin,” A Companion to the Latin Language (ed. J. Clackson) (Chichester, West Sussex – Malden, MA 2011) 257-283. ––––, Social Variation and the Latin Language (Cambridge 2016). Adams, J. – Vincent, N., “Infinitives with verbs of motion from Latin to Romance. Continuity or Change?” Early and Late Latin. Continuity or Change? (ed. J. Adams – N. Vincent) (Cambridge, England 2016) 265-293. Åkerman, M., Über die Echtheit der letzteren (!) Hälfte von Tertullians Adversus Iudaeos (Diss. Uppsala University; Lund, Sweden 1918). Allgeier, A., “Die Konstanzer altlateinische Prophetenhandschrift,” JGG 1939 (1940) 7995. Allmer, A. – Dissard, P. (ed.), Musée de Lyon. Inscriptions antiques (Lyon 1888, 1889, 1890, 1892, 1893) I-V. –––– (ed.), Trion. Antiquités découvertes en 1885, 1886 et antérieurement au quartier de Lyon dit de Trion (MASL.L 25; Paris – Lyon 1888). Athanasius of Alexandria, “Κατα πασων των αιρεσεων = Contra omnes haereses,” Τα ευρισκομενα παντα = Opera omnia quae exstant. Tomus IV (ed. Monachi ordinis S. Benedicti e Congregatione S. Mauri – J.-P. Migne) (PG 28; Lutetiae Parisiorum 1857) 501-524. Augustine of Hippo, “De gratia et libero arbitrio,” Späte Schriften zur Gnadenlehre. De gratia et libero arbitrio, De praedestinatione sanctorum libri duo (olim: De praedestinatione sanctorum, De dono perseverantiae) (ed. V. H. Drecoll – C. Scheerer) (CSEL 105; Berlin – Boston 2019) 131-166. Bady, G., “L’editio Parisina altera des œuvres de Jean Chrysostome et la Patrologie grecque de Migne,” ErA 4 (2012) 1-17. Ball Platner, S., “Notes on the Use of Gerund and Gerundive in Plautus and Terence,” AJP 14/4 (1893) 483-490. Bardenhewer, O., Patrologie (ThBib; Freiburg im Breisgau 1894). Bauer, W. – Danker, F. W., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago 32000). Billen, A. V., The Old Latin Texts of the Heptateuch (Cambridge, England 1927). Blaise, A., Dictionnaire latin-français des auteurs chrétiens (Réimpression anastatique suivie d’addenda et de corrigenda) (Turnhout 1954, 1997). Bludau, A., Die alexandrinische Übersetzung des Buches Daniel und ihr Verhältniss zum massoretischen Text (BSt[F] 2/2-3; Freiburg im Breisgau 1897). ––––, “Die Apokalypse und Theodotions Danielübersetzung,” ThQ 79 (1897) 1-26. Bodenmann, R., Naissance d’une Exégèse. Daniel dans l’Eglise ancienne des trois premiers siècles (BGBE 28; Tübingen 1986). Bogaert, P.-M. “Le témoignage de la Vetus Latina dans l’étude de la tradition des Septante. Ézéchiel et Daniel dans le Papyrus 967” Bib. 59 (1978) 384-395. Braun, R., Deus Christianorum. Recherches sur le vocabulaire doctrinal de Tertullien (Paris 2 1977). Brepols, “Library of Latin Texts” (2020) http://clt.brepolis.net/llta/.

236

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

Brosa Rocabert, P., Novatianea. Estudio de las citas bíblicas en las fuentes latinas del novacianismo (Diss. Universidad de Barcelona; Barcelona 1986). Burkitt, F. C., The Old Latin and the Itala. With an appendix containing the text of the S. Gallen Palimpsest of Jeremiah (ed. J. A. Robinson) (TaS IV/3; Cambridge, England 1896). Burrus, V. – Conti, M. (ed.), The Life of Saint Helia. Critical Edition, Translation, Introduction, and Commentary (OECT; Oxford 2013). Burton, P. H., The Old Latin Gospels. A Study of their Texts and Language (OECS; Oxford 2000). Burton, P. H. et al. (ed.), Evangelium secundum Iohannem (VL 19; Freiburg im Breisgau 2011-[2013]). Caesar, G. J., Commentarii rerum gestarum. I. Bellum Gallicum (ed. W. Hering) (BSGRT; Leipzig 1987). Calboli, G., “Latin Syntax and Greek,” New Perspectives on Historical Latin Syntax. I. Syntax of the Sentence (ed. H. H. Hock) (TLSM 180/I; Berlin – New York 2009) 65-193. Cañas Reíllo, J. M., “Daniel. Vetus Latina,” THiB. Writings (ed. A. Lange – E. Tov) (1C; Leiden – Boston 2017) 575-578. ––––, “El Léxico de la Vetus Latina en el Contexto del Latín y de las Lenguas Romances,” Aem. 4 (2016) 159-194. ––––, “Daniel, Additions to. Latin,” THiB. The Deuterocanonical Scriptures (ed. F. Feder – M. Henze) (2B; Leiden – Boston 2019) 153-157. Capelle, P., Le texte du Psautier latin en Afrique (CBLa 4; Rome 1913). Castelli, G., “Lucifero di Cagliari e la critica,” Koin.(N) 22/1-2 (1998) 21-65. Cazenave, J., “Le traité Adversus Judaeos de Tertullien. Essai sur ses auteurs et ses destinataires,” Pal. 83 (2010) 313-330. Cicero, Les devoirs. I. Introduction, livre 1. II. Livres 2-3 (ed. M. Testard) (BLet; Paris 1965, 1970) I-II. Clement of Rome, “Epistula I,” Patrum apostolicorum opera. Textum ad fidem codicum et Graecorum et Latinorum adhibitis praestantissimis editionibus (ed. O. De Gebhardt – A. Harnack – T. Zahn) (Lipsiae 51906) 1-35. Corssen, P., Zwei neue Fragmente der Weingartener Prophetenhandschrift. Nebst einer Untersuchung über das Verhältnis der Weingartener und Würzburger Prophetenhandschrift (Berlin 1899). Cyprian of Carthage, Opera Omnia. Tomus I (ed. W. von Hartel) (CSEL 3; Vindobonae 1868). Cyril of Alexandria, “Περι της εν πνευματι και αληθεια προσκυνησεως και λατρειας = De adoratione et cultu in spiritu et veritate,” Opera in VI tomos tributa. Tomus I (ed. J. Aubert) (Lutetiae 1638) 1-631. ––––, “Περι της εν πνευματι και αληθεια προσκυνησεως και λατρειας = De adoratione et cultu in spiritu et veritate,” Τα ευρισκομενα παντα = Opera quae reperiri potuerunt omnia. Tomus I (Editio Parisiensis altera duobus tomis auctior et emendatior) (ed. J. Aubert – J.-P. Migne) (PG 68; Lutetiae Parisiorum 1864) 133-1150. Diercks, G. F., introduction to Ad Novatianum, Novatian, Opera quae supersunt. Nunc primum in unum collecta ad fidem codicum qui adhuc extant necnon adhibitis editionibus veteribus (ed. G. F. Diercks) (CCSL 4; Turnholti 1972) 130-135. ––––, introduction to Lucifer of Cagliari, Opera quae supersunt. Ad fidem duorum codicum qui adhuc extant necnon adhibitis editionibus veteribus (ed. G. F. Diercks) (CCSL 8; Turnholti 1978) i-cxxxi.



Bibliography 237

Dold, A., Konstanzer altlateinische Propheten- und Evangelien-Bruchstücke mit Glossen. Nebst zugehörigen Prophetentexten aus Zürich und St. Gallen (TAB 1/7-9; Beuron in Hohenzollern – Leipzig 1923). ––––, Neue St. Galler vorhieronymianische Propheten-Fragmente. Der St. Galler Sammelhandschrift 1398b zugehörig (TAB 1/31; Beuron in Hohenzollern 1940). Dunn, G. D., “Tertullian and Daniel 9:24-27. A Patristic Interpretation of a Prophetic TimeFrame,” ZAC 6/2 (2002) 330-344. Eusebius of Caesarea, Eclogae propheticae. E codice manuscripti Bibliothecae Caesareae Vindobonensis (ed. T. Gaisford) (Oxonii 1842). ––––, “Eclogae propheticae,” Τα ευρισκομενα παντα = Opera omnia quae exstant. Tomus IV (ed. T. Gaisford – J.-P. Migne) (PG 22; Lutetiae Parisiorum 1857) 1017–1262. ––––, Eusebius Werke. VI. Die Demonstratio evangelica (ed. I. A. Heikel) (GCS 23; Berlin 1913). Evans, E., introduction to Tertullian of Carthage, Adversus Marcionem. I. Books 1 to 3. II. Books 4-5 (ed. E. Evans) (OECT; Oxford 1972) ix-xxiii. Fernández Marcos, N., Introducción a las Versiones Griegas de la Biblia (TECC 64; Madrid 2 1998). Fischer, B., Verzeichnis der Sigel für Handschriften und Kirchenschriftsteller (VL 1; Freiburg im Breisgau 11949). –––– (ed.), Genesis (VL 2; Freiburg im Breisgau 1951-1954). ––––, Verzeichnis der Sigel für Kirchenschriftsteller (VL 1/1; Freiburg im Breisgau 21963). Forcellini, E. – Furnaletto, G. – de Vit, V., Totius Latinitatis Lexicon. Opera et studio Aegidii Forcellini lucubratum et in hac editione post tertiam auctam et emendatam a Josepho Furlanetto alumno Seminarii patavini novo ordine digestum amplissime auctum atque emendatum cura et studio Vincentii De-Vit (Prati 1853-1879) I-X. Fortunatianus of Aquileia, Commentarii in Evangelia (ed. L. J. Dorfbauer) (CSEL 103; Berlin – Boston 2017). Frede, H. J. (ed.), Epistula ad Ephesios (VL 24/1; Freiburg im Breisgau 1962-1964). ––––, “Bibelzitate bei Kirchenvätern. Beobachtungen bei der Herausgabe der Vetus Latina,” La Bible et les Pères. Colloque de Strasbourg, 1-3 Oct., 1969 (ed. A. Benoît – P. Prigent) (BCESS; Paris 1971) 79-96. ––––, “Die Zitate des Neuen Testaments bei den lateinischen Kirchenvätern. Der gegenwärtige Stand ihrer Erforschung und ihre Bedeutung für die griechische Textgeschichte,” Die alten Übersetzungen des Neuen Testaments, die Kirchenväterzitate und Lektionare. Der gegenwärtige Stand ihrer Erforschung und ihre Bedeutung für die griechische Textgeschichte (ed. K. Aland) (ANTF 5; Berlin – New York 1972) 455-478. ––––, Kirchenschriftsteller. Verzeichnis und Sigel (VL 1/1; Freiburg im Breisgau 31981, 4 1995). –––– (ed.), Epistula ad Titum, Philemonem, Hebraeos (VL 25/2; Freiburg im Breisgau 19831991). Fröhlich, U., “Einleitung,” Epistula ad Corinthios I (VL 22; Freiburg im Breisgau 19951998) 9-240. Frontino, S. J., De Aquaeductu Urbis Romae = Los Acueductos de Roma (ed. T. González Rolán) (CHAGL; Madrid 1985). Gangutia, E. – Rodríguez Somolinos, J. et al., Diccionario Griego-Español (ed. F. Rodríguez Adrados et al.) (Madrid 22008, 1986, 1991, 1994, 1997, 2002, 2009, 2019) I-VIII. García de la Fuente, O., “El superlativo en la Biblia latina,” EM 46 (1978) 347-367. Gerzaguet, C., “Ambroise de Milan et le texte des Ecritures,” Le miel des Ecritures (ed. S. Marculescu Badilita – L. Mellerin) (CBiblin 1; Turnhout 2015) 249-267.

238

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

Gianto, A., “Some Notes on Evidentiality in Biblical Hebrew,” Biblical and Oriental Essays in Memory of William L. Moran (ed. A. Gianto) (BibOr 48; Roma 2005) 133-153. Glare, P. G. W. (ed.), Oxford Latin Dictionary (Oxford 22012) I-II. Goetz, G. – Gundermann, G. (ed.), Corpus Glossariorum Latinorum. II. Glossae Latinograecae et Graecolatinae (Lipsiae 1888). Goetz, G. – Löwe, G. (ed.), Corpus Glossariorum Latinorum. II. Glossae Latinograecae et Graecolatinae (Lipsiae 1888). Goetz, K. E., “Contestor,” TLL IV, 688-691. Goldingay, J., Daniel (ed. B. M. Metzger) (WBC 30; Dallas 1989). Graves, M., “The Biblical Text as Attested in Ancient Literature. The Latin Fathers,” THiB (ed. A. Lange – E. Tov) (1C; Leiden – Boston 2017) 759-763. Groupe Hilarianiste, “Le De cursu temporum d’Hilarianus et sa réfutation (CPL 2280 et 2281): Une querelle chronologique à la fin de l’Antiquité. Éditions, traduction, études,” RechAugPat 37 (2013) 131-267. Gryson, R. (ed.), Esaias. [I. 1-39. II. 40-66] (VL 12; Freiburg im Breisgau 1987-1993, 19931997) I-II. –––– (ed.), Apocalypsis Johannis (VL 26/2; Freiburg im Breisgau 2000-2003). Gryson, R. – Frede, H. J., Altlateinische Handschriften = Manuscrits vieux latins. Répertoire descriptif. I. Mss 1-275. II. Mss 300-485 (manuscrits du Psautier) (VL 1/2; Freiburg im Breisgau 1999, 2004) I-II. Gryson, R. – Frede, H. J. – Fischer, B., Répertoire général des auteurs ecclésiastiques latins de l’antiquité et du haut Moyen Âge (VL 1/1; Freiburg im Breisgau 52007) I-II. Hall, T. N. – Norris, M., “The Chrysostom texts in Bodley 516,” JThS n.s. 62/1 (2011) 161-175. von Hartel, W., introduction and indices to Lucifer of Cagliari, Opuscula (CSEL 14; Vindobonae 1886) I-XXXXII, 334-378. ––––, “Lucifer von Cagliari und sein Latein,” ALLG 3 (1886) 1-58. Heer, J. M., Die Versio Latina des Barnabasbriefes und ihr Verhältnis zur altlateinischen Bibel. Erstmals untersucht nebst Ausgabe und Glossar des griechischen und lateinischen Textes (Freiburg im Breisgau 1908). Hillgarth, J. N., introduction to Altercatio Ecclesiae et Synagogae (CCSL 69A; Turnhout 1999) 3-24. Hippolytus, “Αποδεξις εκ των αγιων γραφων περι Χριστου και περι του αντιχριστου = De antichristo,” Exegetische und homiletische Schriften. II. Hippolyt’s kleinere exegetische und homiletische Schriften (ed. H. Achelis) (GCS 1; Leipzig 1897) 1-47. ––––, Werke. Kommentar zu Daniel (ed. G. N. Bonwetsch – M. Richard) (GCS n.s. 7; Berlin 2 2000) 1/1. Hirschfeld, O. (ed.), Inscriptiones trium Galliarum et Germaniarum Latinae. I. Inscriptiones Aquitaniae et Lugudunensis (CIL 13/1/I; Berolini 1899, Berlin 1966). Hoberg, G., De Sancti Hieronymi ratione interpretandi (Friburgi Brisgoviae 1886). Hofmann, J. B. – Szantyr, A., Lateinische Grammatik. II. Lateinische Syntax und Stilistik (verbesserter Nachdruck) (ed. H. Bengtson) (HAW 2/2/II; München 1965, 1972). Holmes, R. – Parsons, J., “Praefatio ad librum Danielis. Tomus IV,” Vetus Testamentum Græcum cum variis lectionibus (Oxonii 1827) [s.p.]. Hoppe, H., Syntax und Stil des Tertullian (Leipzig 1903). ––––, “Censeo,” TLL III, 786-796. ––––, Beiträge zur Sprache und Kritik Tertullians (SVSL 14; Lund 1932).



Bibliography 239

Jerome of Stridon, “Adversus Jovinianum,” Opera. Tomus II (ed. D. Vallarsi – S. Maffei) (Venetiis 21767) 237-384. ––––, “Adversus Jovinianum,” Opera Omnia. Tomus II (ed. D. Vallarsi – S. Maffei – J.-P. Migne) (PG 23; Parisiis 1845) 211-338. ––––, “Commentaria in Danielem,” Opera Omnia. Tomus V (ed. J.-P. Migne) (PL 25; Lutetiae Parisiorum 1845) 491-584. ––––, Opera Exegetica. V. Commentariorum in Danielem libri III (ed. F. Glorie) (CCSL 75A; Turnholti 1964). ––––, Obras completas. VIII. Tratados apologéticos (ed. M.-A. Marcos Casquero – M. Marcos Celestino) (BAC 685; Madrid 2009). ––––, Commentaire sur Daniel (ed. R. Courtray) (SC 602; Paris 2019). John Chrysostom, “Ερμηνεια εις τον Δανιηλ προφητην = Interpretatio in Danielem prophetam,” Opera omnia quæ exstant, uel quæ eius nomine circumferuntur. Ad mss. codices Gallicanos, Vaticanos, Anglicanos, Germanicosque. Tomus VI, [pars I] (ed. B. de Montfaucon et al.) (Parisiis 21835) 229-295. ––––, “Περὶ σωτηρίας ψυχῆς = De salute animae,” Opera omnia quæ exstant, uel quæ eius nomine circumferuntur. Ad mss. codices Gallicanos, Vaticanos, Anglicanos, Germanicosque. Tomus IX, pars II (ed. B. de Montfaucon et al.) (Parisiis 21837) 913-917. ––––, “Περὶ ὑπομονῆς. Καὶ τοῦ μὴ πικρῶς κλαίειν τοῦς τελευτῶντας = De patientia. Et quod mortui non amare lugendi sint,” Opera omnia quæ exstant, uel quæ eius nomine circumferuntur. Ad mss. codices Gallicanos, Vaticanos, Anglicanos, Germanicosque. Tomus IX, pars II (ed. B. de Montfaucon et al.) (Parisiis 21837) 896-905. ––––, “Ερμηνεια εις τον Δανιηλ προφητην = Interpretatio in Danielem prophetam,” Τα ευρισκομενα παντα = Opera omnia quae exstant, uel quae eius nomine circumferuntur. Ad mss. codices Gallicanos, Vaticanos, Anglicanos, Germanicosque. Tomus VI (ed. B. de Montfaucon et al.) (PG 56; Parisiis 1862) 193-246. ––––, “Περὶ σωτηρίας ψυχῆς = De salute animae,” Τα ευρισκομενα παντα = Opera omnia quae exstant, uel quae eius nomine circumferuntur. Ad mss. codices Gallicanos, Vaticanos, Anglicanos, Germanicosque. Tomus IX (ed. B. de Montfaucon et al.) (PG 60; Parisiis 1862) 735-738. ––––, “Περὶ ὑπομονῆς. Καὶ τοῦ μὴ πικρῶς κλαίειν τοῦς τελευτῶντας = De patientia. Et quod mortui non amare lugendi sint,” Τα ευρισκομενα παντα = Opera omnia quae exstant, uel quae eius nomine circumferuntur. Ad mss. codices Gallicanos, Vaticanos, Anglicanos, Germanicosque. Tomus IX (ed. B. de Montfaucon et al.) (PG 60; Parisiis 1862) 723736. Justin Martyr, Dialogus cum Tryphone (ed. M. Marcovich) (PTS 47; Berlin 1997). Kapp, I. – Meyer, G., “Emineo,” TLL V/2, 490-496. Kauhanen, T., “Using patristic evidence. A question of methodology in the textual criticism of the LXX,” XIV Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Helsinki, 2010 (ed. M. K. H. Peters) (SCSt 59; Atlanta 2013) 677-690. ––––, Lucifer of Cagliari and the Text of 1-2 Kings (SCSt 68; Atlanta 2018). Koch, H., “Zur pseudo-cyprianischen Schrift Ad Novatianum,” Cyprianische Untersuchungen (AKG[Bo] 4; Bonn 1929) 358-420. Lahey, L., “The Additions to Daniel,” T&T Clark Companion to the Septuagint (ed. J. K. Aitken) (London – New Delhi – New York – Sydney 2015) 555-567. Lapidge, M., “Glossen, Glossare. I. Mittellateinische Literatur,” LMA IV, 1508-1510. Laughton, E., The Participle in Cicero (OCPM; London 1964). Lehnert, G., “Anticipo,” TLL II, 167.

240

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

Leijenhorst, C. G., “Recogitatus,” TLL XI/2, 378. Leumann, M., Lateinische Grammatik. I. Lateinische Laut- und Formen-Lehre (ed. H. Bengtson) (HAW 2/2/I; München 51977). Liddell, H. G. et al., A Greek-English Lexicon (9th ed. with supplements) (Oxford – New York 1996). Löfstedt, E., Vermischte Studien zur Sprachkunde und Syntax (Lund, Sweden – London 1936). ––––, Syntactica. Studien und Beiträge zur historischen Syntax des Lateins. II. Syntaktischstilistische Gesichtspunkte und Probleme (SHVL 10/II; Gleerup 1956). Loi, V. – Amata, B., “Lattanzio,” NDPAC 2, 2747-2750. Lucifer of Cagliari, Ad Constantium, Constantini Magni F. Imp. Aug. Opuscula (ed. J. Du Tillet) (Parisiis 1568). ––––, Opuscula (ed. W. von Hartel) (CSEL 14; Vindobonae 1886). Manilius, Il poema degli astri = Astronomica. I. Libri 1-2. II. Libri 3-5 (ed. E. Flores) (SGL; Roma 32011, 2006) I-II. McLay, R. T., The OG and Th Versions of Daniel (SCSt 43; Atlanta, GA 1996). ––––, “The Old Greek Translation of Daniel IV-VI and the Formation of the Book of Daniel,” VT 55 (2005) 304-323. ––––, “Daniel (Old Greek and Theodotion),” T&T Clark Companion to the Septuagint (ed. J. K. Aitken) (London – New Delhi – New York – Sydney 2015) 544-554. Merkx, P. A. H. J., Zur Syntax der Kasus und Tempora in den Traktaten des hl. Cyprian (LCP 9; Nijmegen 1939). Mohrmann, C., “Les éléments vulgaires du latin des chrétiens,” VigChr 2/2 (1948) 89-101. ––––, “Les origines de la latinité chrétienne à Rome,” VigChr 3 (1949/2-3) 67-106, 163-183. ––––, “Praedicare – Tractare – Sermo. Essai sur la terminologie de la prédication paléochrétinne,” MD 39 (1954) 97-107 = “Praedicare – Tractare – Sermo,” Étude sur le Latin des Chrétiens. II. Latin Chrétien et Médiéval (SeL 87; Roma 1961) 63-72. ––––, review of Säflund, G., De Pallio und die stilistische Entwicklung Tertullians (SSIR; Lund, Sweden 1955), REL 33 (1955) 423-425. ––––, “La structure du latin paléochrétien,” Étude sur le Latin des Chrétiens. IV. Latin chrétien et latin médiéval (SeL 143; Roma 21977) 11-28. Monachi Abbatiae Pontificiae Sancti Hieronymi in Urbe (ed.), Liber Danihelis. Ex interpretatione sancti Hieronymi cum praefationibus et variis capitulorum seriebus (BSV 16; Romae 1981). Montgomery, J. A., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel (ICC; Edinburgh 1927). Moretti, L. (ed.), IGUR. III. 1142-1490 (SIISA 28; Romae 1979). Münscher, K., “Brevio,” TLL II, 2170-2172. Münter, F., Fragmenta versionis antiquae Latinae antehieronymianae prophetarum Ieremiae, Ezechielis, Danielis et Hoseae, e codice rescripto Bibliothecae Universitatis Wirceburgensis. Programma, quo inaugurationem Reverendissimi Episcopi Ripensis Stephani Tetens ... indicit d. Fridericus Münter (Hafniae 1819). Muraoka, T., A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint (Louvain – Paris – Walpole, MA 2009). Neef, H.-D., “Daniel / Das Buch Daniel. Einleitung,” Septuaginta Deutsch. Erläuterungen und Kommentare. Band 2, Psalmen bis Danielschriften (Stuttgart 2011) 3016. Nelz, K., “Indago,” TLL VII/1, 1104-1106. O’Malley, T. P., Tertullian and the Bible. Language, Imagery, Exegesis (LCP 21; Noviomagi 1967). Orbe, A., “La definición del hombre en la teología del s. II°,” Gr. 48/3 (1967) 522-576. van



Bibliography 241

Origen, Contra Celsum. Libri VIII (ed. M. Marcovich) (VigChr.S 54; Leiden – Boston – Köln 2001). Osburn, C. D., “Methodology in Identifying Patristic Citations in NT Textual Criticism,” NT 47/4 (2005) 313-343. Pacian of Barcelona, Opera quae extant (ed. A. Anglada Anfruns) (CC 69B; Turnhout 2012). Paniagua Aguilar, D., El panorama literario técnico-científico en Roma (siglos I-II d.C.). Et docere et delectare (AcSal.Filol 312; Salamanca 2006). Peek, W. (ed.), Griechische Grabgedichte, griechisch und deutsch (SQAW 7; Berlin 1960). Petitmengin, P., review of Mattei, P., “Recherches sur la Bible à Rome vers le milieu du IIIe siècle : Novatien et la Vetus Latina,” RBen 105 (1995) 255-279, “Chronica Tertullianea et Cyprianea” REAug 42 (1996) 295-320, 307-308. Piras, A., “Bibbia e sermo biblicus negli scritti luciferiani,” La figura e l’opera di Lucifero di Cagliari: una rivisitazione. Atti del I convegno internazionale, Cagliari, 5-7 dicembre 1996 (ed. S. Laconi) (SEAug 75; Roma 2001) 131-144. Pirson, J., La langue des inscriptions latines de la Gaule (Bruxelles 1901). Plato, Phaedo (ed. J. Burnet) (Oxford 1911). ––––, Phaedo (ed. R. S. Bluck) (ILPP; London 1955). Plautus, T. M., Comédies. III. Cistellaria, Curculio, Epidicus (ed. A. Ernout) (BLet; Paris 2 1961). Powell, J. G. F., “A New Text of the Appendix Probi,” CQ 57/2 (2007) 687-700. Prigent, P. – Kraft, R. A., Épître de Barnabé (SC 172; Paris 1971). Quintilian, Institutionis oratoriae libri duodecim. I. Libri 1-6. II. Libri 7-12 (ed. M. Winterbottom) (SCBO; Oxonii 1970) I-II. Rahlfs, A., Verzeichnis der griechischen Handschriften des Alten Testaments (MiSU 2; Berlin 11914). Rahlfs, A. – Fraenkel, D., Verzeichnis der griechischen Handschriften des Alten Testament. I. Die Überlieferung bis zum VIII. Jahrhundert (Sept.S 1/1; Göttingen 22004). Ramos Guerreira, A. “Modo y modalidad,” Sintaxis del latín clásico (coord. J. M. Baños Baños) (Madrid 2009) 405-441. Ranke, E. C., Latinae Veteris Testamenti versionis antehieronymianae fragmenta. E codice Fuldensi eruta atque adnotationibus criticis instructa quibus accedit tabula lithographica (Marburgi 1856-1857). ––––, Fragmenta versionis Sacrarum Scripturarum latinae Antehieronymianae. E codice manuscripto (Vindobonae 21868). ––––, Par palimpsestorum Wirceburgensium. Antiquissimae Veteris Testamenti versionis Latinae fragmenta (Vindobonae 1871). Rönsch, H., Itala und Vulgata. Das Sprachidiom der urchristlichen Itala und der katholischen Vulgata, unter Berücksichtigung der römischen Volkssprache (Marburg 21875). Sabatier, P., Bibliorum sacrorum Latinæ versiones antiquæ, seu Vetus Italica (Remis 17431749, Turnholti 1991) I-III. Santoro L’Hoir, F., The Rhetoric of Gender Terms. “Man”, “Woman”, and the Portrayal of Character in Latin Prose (MnS 120; Leiden – New York – Köln 1992). Saxer, V., “Ad Novatianum,” NDPAC 2, 3550-3551. Schanz, M. – Hosius, C. – Krüger, G., GRL. III. Die Zeit von Hadrian 117 bis auf Constantin 324 (HAW 8/III; München 31922). Schrijnen, J., “Homo in het oudchristelijk latijn,” MVAW.L 81/A6 (1936) 181-190 = “Homo im altchristlichen Latein,” Collectanea Schrijnen. Verspreide opstellen (Nijmegen 1939) 364-372.

242

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

Schrijnen, J. – Mohrmann, C., Studien zur Syntax der Briefe des hl. Cyprian. II. Teil (ed. J. Schrijnen) (LCP 6; Noviomagi 1937). Schüpphaus, J., “Das Verhältnis von LXX- und Theodotion-Text in den apokryphen Zusätzen zum Danielbuch,” ZAW 83/1 (1971) 49-72. Schwertner, S. M., IATG3 – Internationales Abkürzungsverzeichnis für Theologie und Grenzgebiete. Zeitschriften, Serien, Lexika, Quellenwerke mit bibliographischen Angaben (Berlin – Boston 32014). Scorza Barcellona, F., “Barnaba, (epistola di),” NDPAC 1, 710-713. Scribonius Largus, Compositiones (ed. S. Sconocchia) (BSGRT; Leipzig 1983). Simonetti, M., “Ippolito,” NDPAC 2, 2584-2599. Smeets, J., “Traditions juives dans la Vulgate de Daniel et le Commentaire de Jérôme,” SIDIC 12/2 (1979) 16-26. Smyth, H. W. – Messing, G. M., Greek Grammar (Revised) (Cambridge, MA 1920, 1984). von Soden, H., Das lateinische Neue Testament in Afrika zur Zeit Cyprians. Nach Bibelhandschriften und Väterzeugnissen (ed. A. Harnack – Carl Schmidt) (TU 33; Leipzig 1909). ––––, “Der lateinische Paulustext bei Marcion und Tertullian. Zum 70. Geburtstag, 26. Januar 1927,” Festgabe für Adolf Jülicher (ed. A. Jülicher – R. Bultmann – H. von Soden) (Tübingen 1927) 229-281. Stenzel, M., “Die Konstanzer und St. Galler Fragmente zum altlateinischen Dodekapropheton,” SE 5 (1953) 27-85. ––––, “Das Zwölfprophetenbuch im Würzburger Palimpsestcodex (cod. membr. n° 64) und seine Textgestalt in Väterzitaten,” SE 7 (1955) 5-34. Svennung, J., Untersuchungen zu Palladius und zur lateinischen Fach- und Volkssprache (AVEU 44; Uppsala 1935). Swete, H. B. (ed.), The Old Testament in Greek, According to the Septuagint. III. Hosea - 4 Maccabees, Psalms of Solomon, Enoch, The Odes (London 41912). Swete, H. B. – Ottley, R. R. – Thackeray, H. St. J., An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek. With an Appendix Containing the Letter of Aristeas (Cambridge 21914). Tatian – Theophilus of Antioch, Tatiani Ad Graecos. Theophili Antiocheni Ad Autolycum (ed. M. Marcovich) (PTS 43–44; Berlin 1995). Theodoret of Cyrrhus, “Υπομνημα εις τας ορασεις του προφητου Δανιηλ = Commentarius in visiones Danielis Prophetae,” Απαντα = Opera omnia. Ex recensione Jacobi Sirmondi. Denuo edidit, graeca e codicibus locupletavit, antiquiores editiones adhibuit, versionem latinam recognovit et variantes lectiones adiecit Ioann. Ludov. Schulze. Tomus II/2 (ed. J. L. Schulze – J. Sirmond) (Halae 1770) 1053-1304. Thesaurus linguae Latinae. Editus auctoritate et consilio academiarum quinque Germanicarum Berolinensis, Gottingensis, Lipsiensis, Monacensis, Vindobonensis. I. A - Amyzon. II. An - Byzeres. III. C - comus. IV. Con - cyulus. V/1. D - dze. V/2. E - ezoani. VI/1. F - gemo. VI/2. Gemo - gytus. VI/3. H - hystrix. VII/1. I - intervulsus. VII/2. Intestabilis - lyxipyretos. VIII. M - myzon. IX/1. N – (nemo). IX/2. O - ozynosus. X/1. P – porrum. X/2. Porta - pyxis. XI/2. R – (relinquo) (Lipsiae – München – Berlin – Stuttgart 19001905, 1901-1906, 1907-1912, 1906-1909, 1910-1934, 1931-1953, 1913-1927, 19291934, 1936-1947, 1934-1965, 1956-1979, 1936-1966, 2011-[2018], 1969-1981, 19822010, 1980-2009, 2012-[2020]) I-XI. Thesaurus linguae Latinae. Index librorum scriptorum inscriptionum ex quibus exempla afferuntur (Lipsiae 21990). “Thesaurus linguae Latinae. Index librorum scriptorum inscriptionum ex quibus exempla afferuntur” (2020) https://www.thesaurus.badw.de/tll-digital/index.html.



Bibliography 243

Thiele, W. (ed.), Epistulae Catholicae. Jac, 1-2 Pt, 1-3 Jo, Jud (VL 26/1; Freiburg im Breisgau 1956-1969). –––– (ed.), Sapientia Salomonis (VL 11/1; Freiburg im Breisgau 1977-1985). –––– (ed.), Sirach (Ecclesiasticus). [Pars prior] (VL 11/2; Freiburg im Breisgau 1987-2005). Tränkle, H., introduction to and commentary on Tertullian of Carthage, Adversus Iudaeos. Mit Einleitung und kritischem Kommentar (Wiesbaden 1964) i-cxxviii, 43-115. Väänänen, V. I., Introduction au latin vulgaire (BFR.A 6; Paris 31981). Vahlen, J., In Marci Terentii Varronis Saturarum Menippearum reliquias coniectanea (Leipzig 1858, Hildesheim, NY 1974). Valgiglio, E., Le antiche versioni latine del Nuovo Testamento. Fedeltà e aspetti grammaticali (Koin.[N].ST 11; Napoli 1985). Varro, M. T., Saturarum Menippearum fragmenta (ed. R. Astbury) (BSGRT; Leipzig 1985). Velleius Paterculus, Historiarum ad M. Vinicium consulem libri duo (ed. W. S. Watt) (BSGRT; Leipzig 1988). Vetus Latina-Institut, “Vetus Latina Database” (2020) http://apps.brepolis.net/vld/ Default.aspx. Victorinus of Poetovium, Opera (ed. J. Haussleiter) (CSEL 49; Vindobonae – Lipsiae 1916). Vineis, E., “Studio sulla lingua dell’Itala,” ItD 34 (1971) 136-248; 36 (1973) 287-372; 37 (1974) 154-166. ––––, “Le antiche versioni latine dei Vangeli,” Storia e preistoria dei Vangeli (DAFT n.s. 112; Genova 1988) 61-90. Weber, R. – Gryson, R. (ed.), Biblia sacra iuxta Vulgatam versionem (Stuttgart 52007). Winterbottom, M., review of Diercks, G. F., Luciferi Calaritani Opera quae supersunt. Ad fidem duorum codicum qui adhuc extant necnon adhibitis editionibus veteribus (CCSL 8; Turnholti 1978), JThS n.s. 31/1 (1980) 209-211. Zelzer, K., “Vetus Latina,” GRL. IV. Die literatur des Umbruchs. Von der römischen zur christlichen Literatur. 117 bis 284 n. Chr. (ed. K. Sallmann) (HAW 8/IV; München 1997) 352-367. Zelzer, K. – Schmidt, Peter Lebrecht, “Q. Septimius Florens Tertullianus. 5. Adversus Iudaeos,” GRL. IV. Die literatur des Umbruchs. Von der römischen zur christlichen Literatur. 117 bis 284 n. Chr. (ed. K. Sallmann) (HAW 8/IV; München 1997) 452-455. Ziegler, J. (ed.), Ezechiel (Sept. 16/1; Göttingen 1952). –––– (ed.), Susanna, Daniel, Bel et Draco (Sept. 16/2; Göttingen 11954). Ziegler, J. – Munnich, O. – Fraenkel, D. (ed.), Susanna, Daniel, Bel et Draco (Sept. 16/2; Göttingen 21999). Zilverberg, K., The Textual History of Old Latin Susanna (Opusculum ad lectionem coram publico, Pontifical Biblical Institute; Rome 2017). ––––, “Old Latin Daniel in Antiphons and the Benedicite of the Earliest Manuscripts of the Roman Mass and Office,” Resourcing the Prayers of the Roman Liturgy: Patristic Sources. Proceedings of the Tenth Fota International Liturgical Conference, 2017 (ed. J. Briody) (Wells, Somerset, England 2018) 34-47. ––––, “Cultic verbs in Vetus Latina Daniel and in Jerome’s translations of the Greek additions to Daniel,” 13th International Colloquium on Late and Vulgar Latin (Latin vulgaire – latin tardif XIII) (AAH 59; Budapest 2019) 445-452.

INDICES

Overview 1. Sacred scripture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246 2. Latin words (selected) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252 3. Greek words (selected) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254 4. Ancient authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257 5. Modern authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262

246

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

1. Sacred scripture Gn 2:7 78 3:8 87 3:10 87 17:17 79 18:21 84 49:5 84

Jos 7:6 219 7:23 219

Ex 12:3 219 12:6 219 16:3 219 20:5 76 21:10 217 24:17 130

3-4 Rg

Lv 19:17 79 19:32 219 20:3 77 20:6 77 21:11 78

Jdt 12:12 217

Nm 6:6 78 20:25 219 25:7-8 219 35:33 109 Dt 8:14 78 11:28 76 12:2 76 13:3 76 13:4 76 13:6 76 15:7 78 19:12 219 19:15 76 30:14 76, 78 31:9 219 32:39 181

1 Rg 7:10 212 13:14 78 41

3 Rg 12:20 219 4 Rg 23:1 219

Jb 9:8 86 28:28 82 38:16 86 Ps 18:8-9 78 21:17 219 43:23 182, 183 77:72 82 81:1 219 103:4 130 Prv 5:19 217 8:27 149 24:8 181 28:14 142 Ecl 2:5

180, 218

Sap 41 3:6 140



Indices 247

17:2 166 18:1 169 Sir

41

Is 28, 161, 215 3:14 148 11:2 80 14:13 149 29:14 80 40:8 76 40:14 81, 83 44:20 78 45:1 34 53:3 209 54:15 34 55:5 80 66:1 149 66:23 34 Jr 28 1:5 81 2:8 219 Bar 2:12 124 Ez 19, 27, 28, 29, 47 3:8 77 15:7 77 Sus (= Vg Dn 13) 13, 20, 41, 47, 134, 148, 170, 171, 173, 178, 203, 208, 213, 214, 218 219, 222 1 152, 153 2b-10a 30 2 135, 141 3 135 4 88 7 86, 87, 88 13 179 20 174, 175, 179, 190, 213, 216, 217, 223, 224 21 179, 184, 190, 213 22 204, 214, 215

23 213, 215, 221, 223 28 179, 213, 215, 219 29 211, 214 30 178, 179, 204, 215 31 214, 215 32 87, 179, 214, 215, 216 33 180, 214, 215, 216 34 214, 215, 219 35 178, 179, 213, 214, 215 36 86, 175, 179, 208, 209, 214, 219, 223 37 60, 77, 87, 216, 232 38-39 174 38 204, 214, 223 39-40 214 39 179, 215, 216, 221, 222, 223 40 214, 223 41 175, 190, 205, 211, 213, 215, 216, 219, 42 14, 191, 203, 205, 210, 214, 215, 222 43 179, 191, 204, 213, 215, 216, 221 45 163, 191, 203, 215, 222, 223 46 211 47 205, 211, 214, 215, 222 48 220, 221, 223 49 191, 214 51-52 175 51 179, 183, 205 52 179, 191, 203, 206, 210, 212, 213, 216 53 192, 201, 214, 216, 220, 223 54-55 220 54 179, 180, 192, 214, 216, 217, 220 55 179, 206, 214, 216, 220, 221, 223 56 192, 212, 213, 215 57 192, 203, 214, 215, 216, 217 58-59 220 58 192, 214, 215, 217, 220 59 43, 209, 214, 216, 220

248

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

60 176, 205, 211, 214, 215, 216 61-62 177, 219, 220 61 179, 213, 215, 219 62 175, 211 62b 61 Dn (= Vg Dn 1-12) 1:1 151 1:2 141 1:17 61, 72, 73, 74, 76, 78, 80, 83 2-3 166 2:12 62 2:14 62 2:17-18 62 2:18 62 2:24 62 2:30 129 2:31-35 40, 168 2:31 135, 139, 141, 154, 166, 168 2:32 145, 152 2:34 16, 34, 62, 94, 96, 98, 110, 117, 118, 127, 129, 130, 136, 143, 145, 166 2:35 95, 133, 143, 145, 146, 150, 153, 166, 168 2:39-40 164, 165 2:39 166 2:44 16, 34, 62, 166 2:48 62 3 16, 18, 26, 27, 47, 71, 76, 78, 141, 147, 166, 169, 184 3:16-18 63, 75, 88 3:16 35, 63, 72, 73, 74, 86, 89, 135, 141, 166 3:17 16, 72, 76, 78, 135, 136, 147, 166, 184 3:18 72, 74, 89, 118, 136, 151, 166 3:19 184 3:20 184 3:21 61, 72, 184 3:22 184 3:23 184

3:24 86 3:25 19, 118, 127, 128, 132, 141, 144, 154 3:38 138, 141, 150, 151 3:39 118, 129, 141, 144 3:40 140, 141, 145, 151, 153 3:41 142 3:42 142, 144 3:46 184 3:47 184 3:48 184 3:49 184 3:50 119, 148 3:51 119, 130, 151 3:91 41, 168, 169 3:92 41, 64, 72, 86, 169 3:94 40, 64 4-6 46, 47 4-5 29, 47 4:15 62 4:24 119, 128, 129, 133, 137, 139, 145, 150 4:25 174 4:29 65, 75 4:31 129 4:33 174 4:34c 62 5:21 174 6:22 73 6:23 128, 146, 147, 151 6:24 136, 142, 143, 150, 152, 153, 154 6:25 142, 144, 145, 146, 153 6:26-27 146 6:26 119, 129, 139, 142, 146, 153, 154 6:27 120, 136 7-8 29, 47 7 13, 39, 41, 71, 130, 155, 203, 208, 209, 212, 226, 228 7:1-27 42 7:1 206, 216 7:2-7 202 7:2 192, 203, 206, 216 7:3 174, 175, 203, 206, 215 7:4 174, 175, 193, 208,



Indices 249

212, 215 7:5 176, 205, 206, 209, 214, 216 7:6 42, 193, 202, 215, 216, 224 7:7-8 39 7:7 161, 174, 185, 193, 206, 215, 216, 224 7:8 162, 176, 206, 210, 212, 221, 222 7:9-10 156, 157 7:9 56, 88, 120, 129, 130, 141, 146, 148, 152, 155, 156, 157, 158, 174, 194, 195, 203, 205, 206, 210, 213, 216 7:10 16, 53, 54, 65, 72, 73, 74, 78, 121, 129, 130, 156, 155, 174, 177, 185, 195, 203, 225 7:11-12 202 7:11 174, 177, 196, 211, 212, 215, 216, 213, 221, 222 7:12 196, 216 7:13-14 40, 50, 56, 66, 67, 75, 90, 104, 167, 168, 171, 202, 207 7:13 40, 54, 56, 66, 72, 73, 74, 88, 89, 122, 123, 126, 129, 130, 136, 141, 153, 157, 178, 190, 196, 197, 202, 203, 207, 212, 213, 216, 225, 226, 227, 232 7:14 55, 56, 76, 168, 198, 203, 204, 206, 207, 208, 214, 215, 216 7:15 205, 208, 209 7:16 215 7:17 136, 178, 205, 214, 216 7:18 175, 177, 198, 203, 210, 216, 224 7:19 176, 213, 215, 221 7:20 42, 177, 204, 205, 216, 224 7:21 198, 201, 215, 216 7:22 56, 88, 174, 177, 184, 199, 201, 212, 213, 216, 224, 232

7:23 136, 199, 213, 216, 215, 216 7:24-25 42 7:24 39, 162, 175, 176, 199, 201, 204, 214, 215, 216, 224 7:25 42, 176, 177, 200, 201, 202, 212, 216, 221, 224, 225 7:26 42, 176, 177, 200, 203, 209, 215, 216 7:27 176, 177, 200, 202, 203, 214, 215, 216, 224 8:11 174 8:20-9:2 17 9-10 231 9 16, 96, 170, 228 9:1-3 68 9:1-2 93 9:1 102, 104 9:2 76, 83, 100 9:3 72, 77 9:4 69, 139, 153, 154 9:5 124, 127, 142, 144 9:6 136, 149 9:7 124, 138 9:21-27 93 9:21 16, 60, 69, 72, 74, 95, 101, 104, 106, 107 9:22-23 57 9:23-24 106, 107 9:23 19, 57, 69, 76, 86, 89, 95, 100, 101, 106, 108 9:24-27 94, 97, 228 9:24-25 39 9:24 97, 98, 103, 104, 107, 108, 109, 124, 130, 131, 136, 139, 140, 142, 145, 154 9:25 96, 99, 101, 102, 103, 104, 106, 109, 110, 124, 154 9:26 25, 96, 97, 98, 102, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 125, 130, 139, 140, 141, 145, 149, 153, 155 9:27 41, 102, 105, 106, 107, 125, 127, 136, 139, 170

250

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

10 71 10:1-3 70 10:1 16, 72, 76, 83, 89 10:2-3 17, 73 10:2 16, 55, 74 10:3-6 30 10:3 16, 55, 56, 60, 74, 76, 78, 84, 89 10:7-11 30 10:8 30 10:11-12 24, 70 10:11 30, 56, 57, 76 10:12 72, 74, 76, 77, 78, 79, 83, 85, 90 10:14 19 10:20-22 30 11:36 174 11:37 165 12:4 126, 128, 129, 139, 144, 145, 155, 201 12:7 129, 136, 139 12:9 128 Bel (= Vg Dn 14) 13, 29, 36, 47, 178 5 35, 129, 132, 146, 153 6 129 24 129 31 34 37 136 38 136 39 34 Os 27 Jl 27 Am 27 Jon 27 Mi 27 5:5-6 166 Na 27 So 3:8 219

Mal 2:5 152 2:6 152 1 Mcc 2:36 128 2:42 219 5:47 128 6:63 166 Mt 2:1 151 4:4 76 4:10 76 6:24 76 6:1 184 9:17 184 10:21 181 10:23 84 13:33 184 17:9 184 17:25 212 18:16 76 18:34 212 22:37 78 24:15 41, 170 24:30 66 26:47 219 27:3 219 Mc 9:1 210 14:62 73 Lc 5:36 184 5:37 184 10:27 78 10:6 184 13:9 184 13:28 90 14:32 184 16:15 78 21:16 183 24:14-15 181, 218 24:36 144



Jo 94 1:1-18 152, 153 1:1-3 153 1:1 153 1:9 152 1:10 152 3:5 90 4:34 84 5:35 93 5:36 84 13:10 86 14:2 184 14:11 184 20:19 144 20:21 144 20:26 144 Act 1:4 151 1:14 152 4:23 219 5:15 150 9:27 223 14:15 150 20:11 218 21:13 78, 181 21:31 184 24:26 180, 218 Rm 6:9 166 8:36 182, 183 11:35 81 1 Cor 1:19 81 7:1-7 142 7:6 50 7:25 50 7:30 181 7:39 49 15:22 181 2 Cor 2:7 150 7:1 84 12:9 85 13:1 76

Indices 251

Gal 4:4 85 Eph 1:10 85 Phil 2:6 169 3:12 85 Col 1:21 79 3:5 181 1 Th 5:1 86 5:23 78 2 Th 2:1 219 2 Tm 4:7 85 Hbr 11:33 73 12:2 149 1 Pt 1:25 76 1 Jo 1:18 93 2:11 38 2:16 38 4:18 85 Apc 73, 163 1:7 66 2:5 184 3:17 38 4:2 156 5:4 181 5:5 181 6:16 157 12:9 167 18:9 181 20:11 156

252

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

2. Latin words (selected) abominatio 170 adoro 63, 89, 118 a(d)sisto 53, 64, 66, 73, 74, 121, 153, 180 aeramentum 133, 145 agnitio 80, 126, 128, 139, 145 alioquin 179, 184, 190 alteruter 179, 183-184, 205 altus 42, 64, 177, 198-200, 201-202, 224 ambulo 86, 208, 209, 223 anima 59, 71, 77, 78-79, 81, 118, 129 animus 59, 79 anticipo 185, 207, 212-213, 226, 232 appareo 54, 64, 65, 73, 74, 78, 140 ardeo 64, 120, 129, 195 benedico 151 breuio 98, 107-108, 110, 145, 231 caminus 78, 140, 147, 168, 184 cano 119, 130 cataclysmus 105, 125, 141 censeo 146, 154, comminuo 62, 117, 129, 206, 220 concumbo 174, 179, 180, 192, 203, 215, 216-218 concido 94, 96, 98, 107, 108, 110, 117-118, 127, 130, 199 concupiscentia 175, 192, 213, 224 concurro 174, 216, 217 confessio 53, 77 confiteor 77, 86 consummatio 85, 97, 106-107, 126, 128, 139 consummo 16, 60, 70, 84-85, 89, 91, 97 conuallatio 102, 104, 106, 110, 231 cor 78-79, 192, 193, 212 credo 86, 146, 151 deambulo 60, 86, 87

delictum 77, 79, 104 deseruio 121, 124 desiderium 31, 101, 165 dimidium 200 dimidius 96, 97, 103, 105 doceo 126, 147 dominor 166 dominus 42, 65, 77, 79, 132, 136, 141, 146, 149, 181, 191, 192, 206, 223 eicio 147 eleemosyna 119, 133, 137, 150 emineo 199, 213 ex(s)ecratio 97, 97, 106, 125, 127, 139 exinanio 98, 124 ex(h)omologesis 65, 69, 77, 78, 118, 128, 132, 141, 144 extermino 102, 107 facinus 124 famulabundus 67, 74, 75, 88, 89, 91, 231 famulatorius 88 famulor 63, 75, 78, 89 figura 79, 169 fleo 179, 181, 215 forma 65, 70, 215 fornax 63, 66, 76, 78, 147, 168-169, 185 habeo 43, 58, 63, 79, 82, 86, 89, 143-144, 234 hic 30, 58, 63, 79, 81, 97-99, 103, 107, 127, 139, 150, 157, 166, 174, 179, 208, 211, 212, 213, 214, 223, 224 holocaustum 141 holocaustus 140, 141, 145 homo 54, 56-57, 58, 64, 66, 67, 71, 74, 82, 83, 122, 126, 130, 142-143, 150, 157, 158, 166, 167, 193, 206, 207, 212, 228, 231, 233 horribilis 193, 221



hostia 140 humilis 164, 216 hymnus 119, 130 iacto 167 ilex 192, 220 ille 25, 55, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 97, 98, 99, 127, 139, 140, 149, 210, 223 (and passim) imperium 50, 63, 167, 198, 203, 207 impleo 85, 128, 126, 128, 133, 144, 145 indago 166-167 iniquitas 84, 119, 212, 214, 217 iniustitia 119, 131, 133, 137, 154, 214 iniustus 192, 216 innocens 192, 220 integro 96, 98, 99-100, 109 intellectus 81, 82, 83 intellegentia 61, 80-83, 91 intellego 31, 82, 96, 100, 234 interficio 182, 183, 196 interitus 105 inuetero 104, 109, 191, 210, 212, 216 inuicem 175, 179, 183 iubeo 142, 146, 147, 150 lacrimor 179, 181, 215 latitudo 101, 102, 110 lentiscus 192, 220 libamen 105 libatio 97, 125, 139 litteratura 61, 73, 78 magnitudo 174, 196, 215 malignus 215, 216 mens 59, 79 metuo (metuendus) 154 milies 65 minuo (minutus) 133 miserabilis 56, 57, 69, 71, 76, 86, 101 miseratio 119, 133, 137, 139, 145 munio 128, 129 murus 106, 124 natus 136

Indices 253

necesse 81, 86 necessitas 63, 79, 86, 89, 90 nimium 179 nocens 192, 220 nuntius 179, 180, 184 obsecratio 100, 106 obstruo 126, 128 obtineo 199, 210 occido 175, 182, 183, 192, 220 pinguis 151, 153 pinna 175, 193, 215 pinnaculum 105 potestas 55, 66, 67, 68, 75, 76, 86, 129, 167, 176, 193, 203, 204, 206 praeceptum 50, 124, 179, 180, 184 prehendo 179 presbyter 140, 141, 148, 170, 208, 209, 211, 219, 220 prophetia 104, 124, 130, 136 prudens 82, 83 prudentia 58, 59, 80, 81, 82, 83 quatenus 69, 77, 86, 101 quoadusque 104, 117, 126, 128, 129, 143, 145, 155, 174, 184, 196, 199, 213, 222 quominus 179, 184 recogitatus 68, 70, 71, 76, 77, 79, 83, 88, 90, 91, 100, 231 recogito 57, 59, 77, 83, 88, 231 regnum 55, 62, 65, 67, 68, 85, 90, 149, 157, 164, 166, 167, 176, 196, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 207, 210, 213, 216 reuelo 87 sapiens 80, 181 sapientia 77, 80, 81, 82 sarabarum 64, 77 scientia 61, 80, 81-83, 91, 126 scio 62, 65, 79, 82, 96, 98, 100 seco 43, 216, 220 sedeo 42, 121, 129, 130, 155, 156, 157, 177, 195, 209, 225 sedes 149, 157, 194, 203, 210, 226

254

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

sempiternus 176, 200, 202, 214 senior 148, 170, 219 sensus 59, 79, 82, 213 septennis 65, 75 septennium 75 septuennis 75 sermo 76, 79, 100, 126, 128, 153, 205, 211, 212, 222 seruio 68, 75, 76, 78, 88, 121, 130, 153, 167, 168, 195, 198, 203, 206 somnium 61, 62, 73, 206 somnus 66, 98, 105 sophia 61, 77, 81 sophista 62, 77 species 79, 169, 192, 215 spiritus 79, 80, 81, 90, 118, 119, 129, 141, 148, 186, 191, 208 stadium 60, 77, 87-88, 91, 218, 219, 231, 233 statua 166 suauis 55, 70, 78 sum 152, 222 (and passim) summus 146, 153, 198 synagoga 190, 205, 211, 219, 220 tamquam 54, 56, 64, 66, 67, 74, 79, 130, 152, 164 tempus 68, 85, 86, 97, 100, 103, 107, 124, 126, 128, 139, 150, 167, 196, 200, 202, 212, 231 thronus 140, 141, 148-149, 155, 156, 157 tiara 64, 77

timeo 71, 85, 135, 141, 142, 192, 203, 217 tracto 179, 180-181, 185, 207, 215, 216-218, 225 transgredior 124, 138, 142 ualde 179, 215, 221 uastatio 97, 105, 106, 107, 125, 127, 139, 170 uelo 60, 87 uentus 133, 148, 192 uerbum 30, 31, 42, 61, 71, 74, 76, 79, 90, 141, 157, 200 uetus 54, 56, 66, 88, 122, 123, 127, 202, 216 uetustus 56, 120, 129, 155, 157, 167, 194, 197, 199, 202, 207, 212, 232 uideo 30, 69, 84, 89, 90, 101, 122, 129, 152, 155, 156, 157, 169, 174, 175, 192, 194, 196, 206, 211, 212, 216, 217, 222, 223, 224 uirid(i)arium 87, 88, 175, 179, 180, 181, 184, 185, 207, 208, 209, 218-219, 220, 224, 226, 231 uisio 58, 59, 70, 95, 101, 106, 107, 130, 139, 154, 157, 231 uisus 30, 64, 66, 106, 122, 129, 139, 167, 196, 205, 208 unctio 102, 106, 125, 130, 139 ung(u)o 70, 109, 124, 130, 140, 164

3. Greek words (selected) αἴρω 55, 67, 68, 89 ἀδικέω 124 αἴτιος 192, 220 ἀδικία 84, 119, 131, 133, 137, ἁμαρτάνω 124, 213 154 ἁμαρτία 104, 119, 133, 137-138, ἄδικος 192, 216 154, 191 ἀθετέω 81



ἀναπίπτω 60, 216, 217, 218 ἀνήρ 60, 64, 69, 71, 101, 142, 142, 143, 150, 152, 158, 169, 231 ἀνομία 214 ἀποκαλύπτω 87 ἀποκρίνομαι 63, 86, 89, 96, 99, 109, 154 ἀποκτείνω 175, 192, 220 ἀπόλλυμι 81, 192, 196, 201, 215 216 ἀρχή 67, 69, 101, 176, 196, 198, 200, 202, 203, 207, 216 ἀσεβέω 124, 144 βασιλεία 62, 66, 67, 65, 68, 133, 164, 175, 176, 198, 199, 200, 201, 207, 210, 213, 216 βασιλεύς 63, 64, 70, 133, 136, 137, 142, 147, 150, 175, 201 βδέλυγμα 106, 125, 127, 139, 170 γινώσκω 96, 98, 136 γνωρίζω 62, 81 γνῶσις 80, 81, 83, 126, 139, 145 γνώστης 191, 203, 210, 222 γνωστός 63 γραμματική 61, 72, 73, 78 δέησις 62, 68, 100, 106 διάνοια 59, 71, 77, 78, 79 διαφθείρω 55, 67, 68, 107 διδάσκω 81, 126, 128, 155 δίκαιος 192 δόγμα 146, 154 δουλεύω 67, 68, 76, 198, 203, 206 δρόσος 119, 148 εἶδον (cf. ὁράω) 60, 69, 89, 101, 174, 216, 223 εἰκών 63, 117-118, 129, 133, 135, 166 ἐκκαινόω 96, 98 ἐκκενόω 96, 98, 124 ἐκκόπτω 108, 165 ἐλεεινὸς 56, 69, 71, 76, 86, 101 ἐλεημοσύνη 119, 133, 137-138, 150 ἔλεος 68, 139, 142, 151

Indices 255

ἐξιλάσκομαι 109, 131, 154 ἐξομολογέομαι 69, 118, 132, 141, 144 ἐξουσία 55, 66, 67, 68, 76, 193, 206 ἐπιθυμία 55, 69, 70, 71, 78, 101, 165, 175, 192, 213, 224 ἐπίσταμαι 80-81, 191, 221 ἐπιστήμη 61, 80, 82, 83 ἐπιταγή 50, 50, 63 ἐρήμωσις 97, 105, 106, 107, 125, 127, 139, 170 εὐλογέω 151, 205 ἥμισυς 105, 200 θανατόω 179, 181, 182, 183, 213 θρόνος 133, 141, 148, 149, 155, 157, 194, 195, 203, 206, 210 θυσία 69, 105 ἱερόν 105, 125, 127 ἵστημι 60, 63, 118, 132, 162, 164, 193, 206, 223 ἴσως 133, 137-138 κάθημαι 120, 129, 155, 156, 157 καθίζω 121, 129, 130, 155, 156, 157, 176, 195, 225 καιρός 65, 85, 107, 124, 126, 150, 196, 200, 202, 212, 232 καίω 63, 64, 130 κακόω 71 κάμινος 63, 64, 76, 78, 132, 141, 147, 169 καρδία 71, 78, 79, 192, 193, 212 κατακαλύπτω 87 κατακλυσμός 105, 125, 141 κατακρίνω 175, 192, 201, 221 καῦσις 177, 196, 222 κριτήριον 129, 130, 155, 156, 177, 191, 195, 225 κρυπτός 191, 203, 210, 222 κρύπτω 60, 80, 157 κυκλόω 60, 87 κυριεία 119, 129, 132, 139, 154 κυριεύω 154, 164, 166 κύριος 61, 62, 63, 68, 69, 71, 74, 132, 136, 141, 146, 102, 206, 223

256

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

λατρεύω 63, 67, 68, 74, 75-76, 78, 88, 89, 231 λειτουργέω 54, 65, 72, 73, 74, 78, 121, 130, 195 λέξις 79 λογίζομαι 181 λογικός 82 λογισμός 59 λόγος 68, 71, 126, 128, 200, 205, 211, 222 μῆκος 101, 102 μορφή 169 μυριάς 65, 195 μυρίος 65, 195 νοῦς 79, 82 οἶδα 80 ὁλοκαύτωμα 141 ὁλοκαύτωσις 141, 145 ὁμιλέω 60, 179, 181, 207, 215, 216, 217, 218 ὁμιλία 217 ὅμοιος 64, 169, 209 ὁμοίωμα 64, 169 ὄπισθεν 162 ὀπίσω 162, 164, 202 ὀπτασία 70, 106, 107 ὅραμα 61, 70, 74, 122, 129, 196, 206 ὅρασις 64, 69, 95, 101, 106, 107, 135, 139, 154, 169, 205, 206, 208, 231 ὁράω (cf. εἶδον) 61, 69, 95, 101, 129, 205, 206, 216 ὄψις 58, 59 παλαιός 54, 56, 66, 88, 120, 122, 123, 129, 155, 194, 197, 199, 202, 207 παλαιόω 104, 109, 191, 210, 212, 216 παράδεισος 87, 88, 179, 180, 207, 208, 209, 218, 219, 220, 224, 232 παράνομος 217 παράπτωμα 104, 133, 137, 145 παραφυάδιον 162 πάρειμι 66, 74, 136 παρέρχομαι 67, 68, 124, 142, 198, 203

παρίστημι 53, 65, 66, 72, 73, 74, 89, 121, 153, 195 περιπατέω 64, 86, 87, 169, 208, 209, 223 περισσῶς 193, 215, 221 περιτεῖχος 102, 104, 106, 231 πέτομαι 60, 69, 101 πίων 151, 153 πλατεῖα 102 πλάτος 101, 102 πληθύνω 126, 142, 144, 145 πληρόω 133 πλήρωμα 85 πλήρωσις 60, 70, 84, 85 πνεῦμα 61, 79, 80, 118, 119, 133, 141, 148, 191, 207, 208 πνοή 78, 79 πονηρεύομαι 177, 215, 216, 236 πρεσβύτερος 141, 148, 170, 208, 209, 219 πρίζω 165, 216, 220 πρῖνος 192, 220 προσευχή 68, 69, 74, 101, 106 προσεύχομαι 69, 118, 132 προσκυνέω 63, 89, 118 πρόσοψις 135, 139 προσφέρω 168, 190, 197, 202, 207, 226 προφητεία 104, 124, 136 πτερύγιον 105 ῥῆμα 61, 62, 63, 71, 72, 74, 76, 90, 141 σαράβαρα 64, 72 σαφής 221 σέβομαι 132 σοφία 61, 80, 81, 82 σοφιστής 62 σοφός 62, 80, 81 στάδιον 60, 87, 231 συγγίγνομαι 174, 216, 217, 218 συναγωγή 190, 205, 219-220 σύνεσις 61, 70, 80, 81, 82, 83 συνετός 80, 81 συνίημι 61, 68, 71, 96, 100, 165 σφόδρα 179 ταπεινόω 71, 77, 216



Indices 257

ταπείνωσις τεῖχος τέλειος τελέω τιάρα τρέμω τρέχω ὑποδείκνυμι ὕψιστος φανερός

118, 141 102, 104, 124 85 84, 85 64, 72 142 174, 204 62, 69, 86, 89, 95, 101 62, 177, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 224 63

φάσις φθάνω φλέγω φοβέομαι φοβερός φρόνησις χίλιοι χρῖσμα χρόνος ψυχή

179, 184 66, 207, 212, 213, 232 120, 129, 130, 195 63, 71, 85, 135, 141, 142, 192, 203 154, 193, 221 58, 59, 61, 80, 81, 82, 83 65, 121, 130, 195 102, 106, 125, 130, 139 85, 196 59, 78, 81, 118

4. Ancient authors AN s Can 11 163, 186, 191, 192 s Et 8 112, 120, 186, 195 Ver s 182

182

AU 14, 82, 183, 202, 219 an 82 ci 56, 79, 112, 122, 186, 196, 199, 203 corr 182 do 182 ep 16, 112, 125, 182, 188 Ex 217 Fau 112, 125 gr 182 Jb 86 leg 56, 112, 122, 186, 196, 203 loc 79 mor 182 pat 182 Ps 28, 112, 120, 182 q 217 re 182 s 88, 182, 186, 191, 192, 219 s Dol 182 tri 51, 53, 54, 56, 82, 113, 120, 121, 123, 129, 130, 168, 186, 194, 197, 203

219

PS-AU alt

ANT-M

100, 101, 112, 113, 118, 119, 203

ANT-S

112, 120, 121, 129, 130, 186, 194, 200, 203

AM Abr ep fi Hel Is Jac Jb Lc off Ps sp vg AMst Rm AR

Gr

PsAth. 169, 171, 231 hae 169

14, 130, 163, 169, 203, 218, 219, 233 79 88, 130, 186, 191, 218, 219 86, 88, 169 112, 119 130 217 217 130 130, 181, 217 130, 182 163, 186, 191 86

51, 54, 55, 56, 113, 122,

258

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

123, 126, 127, 168, 187, 196, 197, 233 s Cai I,64 182 s Mai 75 168, 169 rhe 79 spe 63, 124, 136, 163, 182, 217 A-SS Helia Per Pionius

156 88, 180, 181, 218 219

BAR

14, 32, 39, 45, 72, 161162, 170, 228, 229

Barn.

161-162, 163

Brev. Goth.

113, 121

Caes. Gall.

221

Cic. off

221 82

Chr.

69-71, 73, 90, 102, 104, 105, 229, 233 71, 74

PsChr. pa sa

74 65, 72 65, 72

cit

CHRO Mt s

51, 53, 55, 86, 113, 121, 168, 187, 194 88, 163, 219

CHRY I,859 lap

113, 119, 169 56, 113, 120, 129, 168, 187, 194, 197, 203, 233

ClemRom. ep

73, 74, 162 65, 72

CO CU-D ep

56 144

CY ep Fo hab lap mort op or pat te un

13, 16, 17, 19, 21, 25, 31, 32, 35-39, 40, 41, 50, 56, 73, 88, 90, 95, 106, 111-159, 165, 166, 168, 169, 170, 171, 177, 178, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 207, 209, 210, 211, 219, 222, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233 35, 36, 37, 45, 106, 113, 136, 140, 142, 148, 149, 166, 182, 219 35, 36, 37, 45, 113, 132, 140, 170, 182 147 19, 36, 37, 45, 114, 127, 132 149 36, 37, 38, 45, 113, 133, 137 36, 37, 45, 113, 152 138 35, 36, 37, 40, 45, 50, 51, 54, 55, 56, 94, 95, 114, 127, 133, 140, 142, 149, 151, 152, 166, 168, 169, 181, 182, 183, 187, 196, 197, 199, 233 36, 37, 45, 152

PS-CY cent mart Nov pa

13, 25, 32, 35-39, 97, 99, 106, 111-159, 170, 181, 207, 225, 232 184 38, 39, 45, 233 38, 39, 45, 51, 53, 114, 127, 148, 149, 152, 155, 156, 157, 158, 184, 187, 194, 195, 231, 233 17, 38, 39, 45, 65, 94, 97, 98, 99, 107, 110, 114, 131, 140, 161, 170,



Indices 259

reb

219, 227, 228, 233 130, 140, 151

Cyr. ado

207

CYR :CO 1,5

56

DRA lau

114, 119

EUCH inst int

217 93

Eus. ecl dem

207 207

EUS-E h

157, 187

EUS-V ep

187, 192, 203, 217, 219, 229, 233

EVA-G FO-A

GR-I tr Ct

114, 119 182

Hesychius of Salona 188, 196, 201, 202, 225, 229, 233 HI chr Dn ep Eph Ez Is Is tr Jov Mi pr Dn pr Is Ps h

14, 40, 50, 56, 57, 106, 148, 163, 183, 203, 220, 226, 234 114, 125, 170 19, 35, 52, 55, 56, 103, 163, 188, 190, 200 82, 169, 182 188, 192 203, 207 81, 217 169 52, 55, 56 115, 119 220 234 115, 118

51, 54, 56, 99-100, 114, 122, 123, 127, 168, 169, 187, 197, 233

HIL Mt Ps tri

14, 203, 225, 226, 229, 233 169 56, 86, 115, 120, 121, 168, 182, 188, 195, 197, 198, 203 14

14, 32, 41, 46, 168170, 171, 219, 228, 230

HILn curs

130 115, 124, 125

FIR err

14, 31, 32, 127, 168, 171 40, 46, 54, 55, 56, 114, 118, 122, 123, 168, 187, 196, 197, 233

PS-FIR con

Hippol. ant

50, 63, 70, 71, 74, 72, 120, 128, 130, 134, 135, 136, 158, 165, 207, 230, 233 207

52, 54, 56, 114, 123, 130, 167, 181

INS

Frontin. aq GAU

183 114, 119

Iust.

144 54, 56, 65, 66, 67, 72, 73, 74, 90, 95, 122, 123, 126, 127, 130, 134, 136, 158, 177, 178, 168, 197, 203, 229, 233

260

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

dial

66, 67, 68, 72

IR

14, 51, 52, 53, 54, 86, 122, 115, 117, 123, 135, 125, 126, 128, 129, 136, 168, 170, 182, 188, 190, 191, 192, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 233

LAC epit in

14, 32, 40, 167-168, 171, 173, 201, 202, 203, 213, 225, 228, 229, 233 40, 46, 56, 115, 122, 167, 188, 196, 198, 202 40, 45, 56, 115, 122, 167, 188, 197, 198, 199, 202

LUC 13, 14, 15, 16, 21, 32, 41-44, 106, 129, 130, 163, 168, 170, 171, 173 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 232, 233 Ath 41, 42, 43, 44, 46, 87, 163, 182, 188, 210, 217, 219 con 219 mor 182, 183, 184, 210 par 42, 43, 44, 46, 52, 54, 56, 115, 120, 121, 122, 123, 136, 168, 189, 219 reg 219 Manil.

107

sp vig NO [CY] ep 31 pud tri

189, 191 218 14, 32, 40, 163, 183 182 40, 45, 152 40, 45

OPT Par

14, 128, 129, 158, 233 115, 119

Or.

65, 72, 73, 74

ORA Vis

113, 116, 118

PAC pae Nov

14, 127, 233 116, 118, 124, 127 127

PAU-M Am

217

PS-PEL Casp 5 PHY Y Pl.

Phd.

83 219 57-59, 79, 81, 83, 88, 90, 100, 231

Plaut. 98, 142, 143, 150, 218 Cist. 143 PRIM

156

182 88, 218

M-Ben Vat

PRIS tr

201, 229, 233 189, 193, 202, 217, 219, 225

124

M-M

115, 119, 144

Quint. inst

79, 107

MAX s s Mu

NIC

203, 233

RES-R

116, 119, 169, 189, 198, 203



Indices 261

RUF Bas Eus Gn Nm Rm sy Scrib. Larg.

183

S-Mo

116, 118

SUL chr

163

τ

τ56 τ70

Tat. orat TE an ap ba car cas cor fu hae Her

id je Jud Marc mon nat or pae pat Pra pud res sco spec test ux

233 116, 120, 129, 189, 194, 195 52, 54, 56, 116, 120, 189, 194, 197, 203 128 182 52, 52, 116, 120, 129, 182, 189, 192, 194 56, 116, 122, 189, 196, 197, 203

111, 119, 182 111, 119 82 13, 15, 16, 17, 19, 21, 24, 32-34, 49-91, 93110, 111, 126, 130, 131, 134, 138, 140, 147, 148, 150, 153, 157, 158, 159, 161, 165, 177, 178, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 213, 217, 218, 219, 227233 57-59, 75, 78, 79, 81, 82, 83, 86, 88, 100, 182 57, 181, 183 76, 86, 90, 106 33, 44, 66, 181 50, 86 33, 44, 50, 60, 76, 86, 88 78, 84, 85, 180, 181, 218 76, 78 81, 86, 153, 219

Tht. TY

reg

Varro Men.

78 19, 33, 34, 44, 61, 62, 68, 69, 70, 71, 84, 95, 219 13, 32, 34-35, 44, 45, 53, 54, 55, 72, 93-110, 116, 118, 123, 124, 125, 127, 130, 137, 170, 178, 189, 197, 227, 228, 229, 231, 232, 233 33, 34, 44, 62, 64, 66, 67, 68, 75, 76, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 84, 85, 87, 90, 94, 104, 116, 122, 123, 127, 130, 147, 148, 181, 189, 197, 219 50, 85, 181, 183 57, 88 33, 34, 44, 57, 64, 76, 77, 85, 147 33, 34, 27, 28, 40, 62, 74, 76, 195 33, 34, 44, 65, 75, 77, 181 33, 34, 44, 65, 76, 84, 87, 90, 147, 153, 183, 184 78, 84, 100, 150, 181 33, 34, 44, 64, 78, 79, 85, 86, 148, 181, 219 33, 45, 63, 76, 77, 85, 86, 147, 181, 182 79, 85 82 86 104, 105, 102, 206, 229 53, 54, 78, 170 212-213

Vell.

75

VER cant

19 182

262

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

Vg

13, 14, 20, 22, 29, 53, 55, 56, 86, 90, 101, 117, 120, 127, 128, 130, 136, 144, 148, 166, 169, 170, 182, 183, 184, 202, 203, 218, 220, 223

VICn Apc fa

14, 16, 19, 32, 40, 163167, 170, 203, 228, 230 40, 45, 117, 125, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 189, 198 40, 45

VIC-V

190, 191, 203, 229, 233

VIG-T Eut sol

203 56

PS-VIG tri Var

129, 229 53, 54, 55, 56, 117, 190 56, 117, 122, 168, 169, 190, 191, 196, 203, 233

VINC-C ap AU an

82

ZE

14, 163, 219

5. Modern authors Åkerman, M. Allgeier, A. Anglada Anfruns, A. Aubert, J.

93, 94, 95, 96 18, 27, 28, 30 127 207

Blaise, A. Bludau, A. Bodenmann, R. Brosa Rocabert, P. Burkitt, F. C. Burton, P. H.

25, 217 163 60, 72, 73, 95, 96, 103, 131 127 16, 17, 24, 59, 60, 71, 72, 73, 94, 95, 131, 136, 164 24, 31, 143

Cañas Reíllo, J. M. Capelle, P. Cazenave, J. Corssen, P.

20, 26, 29, 41, 145 32, 95, 98, 162 94 17, 18, 29

Diercks, G. F. Dold, A. Du Tillet, J. Fischer, B.

41, 42, 43, 210 18, 19, 29, 99, 179, 183, 191, 192, 197 217 19, 94

Forcellini, E. Fraenkel, D. Frede, H. J.

25, 218 19, 47 19, 94

Glorie, F. Gryson, R.

19 19, 29, 161, 163, 164, 215

Hartel, W. Heer, J. M. Hofmann, J. B.

42, 175, 183, 202, 210 161-162 26

von

Lehnert, G. Migne, J.-P. Munnich, O. Münter, F. Muraoka, T.

212 19, 56 19, 42, 47, 61, 73, 162, 163, 164, 190, 204, 207, 208 17 26, 128

O’Malley, T. P. Osburn, C. D.

32, 49, 50 23

Piras, A.

41, 42, 43

Ranke, E. C.

17, 18, 31



Rönsch, H.

Indices 263

24, 210

von

Sabatier, P. Soden, H. Szantyr, A.

15, 16, 17 36, 95 26

Tränkle, H.

95, 96, 97

Vineis, E. Winterbottom, M. Ziegler, J. Zilverberg, K.

24, 210 42, 43 18, 19, 42, 47, 48, 136, 163, 190, 204, 207 40

ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS

Overview 1. General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266 2. Biblical books . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268 3. VL manuscripts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269 4. LXX witnesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271 5. Ancient literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275 6. Modern literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 284

266

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

1. General × indicates the lack of a word that is present in a parallel text; a minus + plus ~ a textual transposition ] marks the end of a reading for which a variant then follows - joining numbers, e.g. Greek 311-538, indicates belonging to a common manuscript group * 1) preceding the abbreviation of a patristic work or biblical chapter and verse numbers, e.g. *TE cor or Dn *3:50, indicates an allusion rather than a citation, or 2) preceding a Latin word, indicates a hypothetical form or an alternative form not used by the author, or 3) preceding a page number, indicates a page within a section thus numbered ※ Hexaplaric asterisk ⸔ Hexaplaric metobelus ? uncertain, e.g. Dn 6:24?, where the verse’s place within the context is uncertain reconstructed text, e.g. ga […] for patristic abbreviations, marks inauthentic material transmitted as authentic in printed editions, e.g. [CHRY], or the author whose work reproduces another Father’s citation, e.g. NO: [CY] ep; also used to supply context to a passage, e.g. iactari eum [i.e. Antichristum] 1°, 2°, 3°… 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc., occurrence of a form within the same verse, e.g. ἐξουσία 3° 1x, 2x, 3x… once, twice, thrice, etc. ap apud (“within”), used to refer to a work transmitted within that of another ancient writer, e.g. VINC-C ap AU an c the manuscript text as corrected, e.g. Greek Qc ca. circa codd codices, i.e. multiple witnesses, whether direct or indirect com the non-lemma portion of a patristic commentary, e.g. HI Dncom, including both textual allusion and citations, as opposed to the lemma given prior to the commentary lem the lemma of a patristic commentary, e.g. HI Dnlem, as opposed to citations or allusions within the commentary following a lemma LXX the Septuagint, without reference to a particular recension or manuscript LXXθ’ the recension of the Septuagint attributed to Theodotion LXXo’ the Septuagint, as opposed to its recensions



Abbreviations and symbols 267

MT (= 𝔐 ) Masoretic Text; sometimes 𝔐 in imitation of Munnich1 n. note, i.e. a footnote or endnote om. omit(s) p. page p pars, indicating part of a group of witnesses, e.g. Aethp Ps. Pseudo txt the text of a manuscript, e.g. Btxt, as opposed to marginal glosses Var variant (reading); not to be confused with PS-VIG Var, for Varimadum vid videtur, indicating an uncertain reading VL 1) Vetus Latina, i.e. Old Latin, or 2) preceding a number to indicate a specific manuscript, according to the numbering of the Vetus Latina-Institut vs(s) verse(s)

1

J. Ziegler – O. Munnich – D. Fraenkel (ed.), Sus-Dn-Bel, 114.

268

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

2. Biblical books 1-2 Cor 1-2 Mcc 1-2 Pt 1-2 Th 1-2 Tm 1-3 Jo 1-4 Rg Act Am Apc Bar Bel Col Ct Dn Dt Ecl Eph Ex Ez Gal Gn Hbr Is Jb

1-2 ad Corinthios 1-2 Macchabaeorum 1-2 Petrus 1-2 ad Thessalonicenses 1-2 ad Timotheum 1-3 Iohannes 1-4 Regnorum Actus Apostolorum Amos Apocalysis Baruch Bel et Draco ad Colossenses Canticum canticorum Daniel Deuteronomium Ecclesiastes ad Ephesios Exodus Ezechiel ad Galatas Genesis ad Hebraeos Isaias Iob

Jdt Jo Jon Jos Jac Jl Jr Jud Lc Lv Mal Mc Mi Mt Na Nm Os Phil Prv Ps Rm Sap Sir So Sus

Iudith Iohannes Ionas Iosue Iacobus Iohel Ieremias Iudas Lucas Leviticus Malachias Marcus Micha Matthaeus Naum Numeri Osee ad Philippenses Proverbia Psalmi ad Romanos Sapientia Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) Sophonias Susanna



Abbreviations and symbols 269

3. VL manuscripts2 1 2 3 5 6 7 50 51 53 54 55 56 65 70 75 76 77 78 94 100 102 148 150 152 175 2

Turin, Biblioteca Nazionale Universitaria 1163 (G. VII. 15) Trent, Museo Nazionale (Castello del Buon Consiglio s. n.) (previously Vienna, Hofbibliothek lat. 1185) Dublin, Trinity College 1709 (N. IV. 18): a folio with Mt 13,12-23 London, British Library Additional 40107: a folio with Mt 14,11-22 Vercelli, Archivio Capitolare Eusebiano s. n. Cambridge, University Library Nn. II. 41 Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale lat. 254 (früher Colbertinus 4051) Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale lat. 11553 (previously Sangermanensis 15) Oxford, Bodleian Library Laud. gr. 35 (1119) Stockholm, Kungliga Biblioteket A. 148 Naples, Biblioteca Nazionale lat. 2 (previously Vienna, Hofbibliothek 16) fol. 42*, 43-56, 71-75 (palimpsest, primary text) Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale lat. 321 Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale lat. 6400 G fol. 113-130 (palimpsest, primary text) = τ56; Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale nouv. acq. lat. 2171 London, British Library Harley 1772 = τ70; Madrid, Real Academia de la Historia Aemil. 22 Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale gr. 107 + 107A (= the 35 leaves stolen by J. Aymon) + 107B (= two replacement leaves of the 6th c.) Saint Petersburg, Gosudarstvennaja Publicnaja Biblioteka im. M. E. Saltykova-Scedrina F. v. XX Graeco-Latinus Dresden, Sächsische Landesbibliothek A. 145b Cambridge, Trinity College B. 17. 1 transcription of glosses from a lost Bible in a Vulgate incunable. El Escorial, Biblioteca de San Lorenzo 54. V. 35 Lyon, Bibliothèque de la Ville 403 (329) + 1964 (1840) Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Ottobon. lat. 66 Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale lat. 45 + 93 Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale lat. 11504-11505 (previously Sangermanensis 4) Bern, Burgerbibliothek 533 Darmstadt, Hessische Landes- und Hochschulbibliothek 895; 3140 (previously 896) (2 folios) Donaueschingen, Hofbibliothek B. I. 3, previously 191 Gryson – Frede, Altlateinische Handschriften.

270

176 177 189 250 419

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

Fulda, Landesbibliothek Aa la (16 folios) Sankt Paul im Lavanttal (Kamten), Stiftsbibliothek s. n. (4 folios) Stuttgart, Württembergische Landesbibliothek fragm. 100 (20 folios) Sankt Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek 1398b p. 126-175 Zürich, Zentralbibliothek C 184 (389) Fragments 23 and 24 (=folios 24 and 25) Würzburg, Universitätsbibliothek M. p. th. f. 64a, pages 17-20, 29-46, 49-50, 97-132, 169-268, 277-280, 295-316 (palimpsest, primary text) La Cava dei Tirreni, Archivio della Badia della SS. Trinità 1 (14) Paris, Bibliothèque de l’Arsenal 8407 fol. 55V-64R A. Ortiz, Breviarium secundum regulam beati Hysidori, dictum Mozarabes (Toleti 1502)



Abbreviations and symbols 271

4. LXX witnesses 4.1. Direct tradition3 4.1.1. By sigla a. Uncials A B Q V ZVI

London, British Museum, Royal 1 D. VI; 5th c. “codex Alexandrinus”. Holmes-Parsons:4 III Rome, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vat. gr. 1209; 4th c. “codex Vaticanus”. Holmes-Parsons: II Rome, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vat. gr. 2125; 6th c. “codex Marchalianus”. Holmes-Parsons: XII Venice, Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana, Gr. 1; 8th c. “codex Venetus”. Holmes-Parsons: 23. Rome, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vat. syr. 162; 6th c. “codex Zuqninensis rescriptus” b. Minuscules and papyri

22 26 36 46 48 49 51 62 87 88

London, British Museum, Royal 1 B. II; 11th-12th c. Rome, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vat. gr. 556; 10th c. Rome, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vat. gr. 347; 11th c. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Coisl. 4; 13th-14th c. Rome, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, gr. 1794; 10th-11th c. Florence, Biblioteca Laurenziana, Plut. XI 4; 11th c. Florence, Biblioteca Laurenziana, Plut. X 8; 11th c. Oxford, New College, 44; 11th c. Rome, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Chig. R. VIII 54; 10th c. Rome, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Chig. R. VII 45; 10th c., “Codex Chisianus”. 90 Florence, Biblioteca Laurenziana, Plut. V 9; 11th c. 96 Copenhagen, Kongelige Bibliotek, Ny Kgl. Saml., 4°, Nr. 5; 11th c. 106 Ferrara, Biblioteca Comunale, 187 II; 14th c. 130 Vienna, Nationalbibliothek, Theol. gr. 23; 12th-13th c.

3 J. Ziegler (ed.), Ez, 7-11; J. Ziegler – O. Munnich – D. Fraenkel (ed.), Sus-Dn-Bel, 9-22, 122-124; cf. Rahlfs – Fraenkel, Verzeichnis (22004), 450-465. 4 R. Holmes – J. Parsons, “Praefatio ad librum Danielis. Tomus IV,” Vetus Testamentum Græcum cum variis lectionibus (Oxonii 1827) [s.p.].

272

147 230 231 233 239 311 380 393 405 407 410 449 490 534 538 541 544 584 588 593 590 670 742 763 764 770 921 925 967

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

Oxford, Bodleian Library, Laud. gr. 30; 12th c. Rome, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vat. gr. 1641; 10th-11th c. Rome, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vat. gr. 1670; 10th-11th c. Rome, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vat. gr. 2067; 10th c. Bologna, Biblioteca Universitaria, 2603; written 1046. Holmes-Parsons: 89 Moscow, Synodal Library, Gr. 354; 12th c. Escorial, Real Biblioteca, Ω-1-5; 12th c. Grottaferrata, A XV.; 8th c. Palimpsest. Swete5: Γ. Jerusalem, Patriarchal Library, Σάβα 697; end of the 13th c. Jerusalem, Patriarchal Library, Τάφου 2; 9th c. Jerusalem, Patriarchal Library, Τάφου 36; 13th c. Palimpsest. Milan, Biblioteca Ambrosiana, E 3 inf.; 10th-11th c. Munich, Staatsbibliothek, Gr. 472; 11th c. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Coisl. 18; 11th c. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Coisl. 191; 12th c. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Coisl. 258; 12th c. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Gr. 15; 11th c. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Grec 1173; 11th c. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Grec 1179; 11th c. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Grec 1478; 11th c. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Grec 1463; 11th c. Rome, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vat. gr. 335; 14th c. Vienna, Nationalbibliothek, Hist. gr. 114; 12th-13th c.; Holmes-Parsons: 149. Athos, Μονὴ Βατοπαιδίου 514; 11th c. Athos, Λαύρα 169; 13th-14th c. Athos, Λαύρα 234; 12th c. Oxford, Bodleian Library, Gr. bibl. d. 2 (P); 4th-5th c. Swete: Δ. London, British Museum, Orient. 7594; 4th c. early 3rd c. A: Dublin, Chester Beatty Museum, P. Chester Beatty X. B: Cologne, Institut für Altertumskunde, P. Theol. 16, 9–32 (= Dn); P. Theol. 32–34 (= Bel); P. Theol. 35–37 (= Sus). C: Barcelona, Fundacion San Lucas Evangelista, P. Barc. inv. 42. 43.

5 H. B. Swete (ed.), The Old Testament in Greek, According to the Septuagint. III. Hosea - 4 Maccabees, Psalms of Solomon, Enoch, The Odes (London 41912) xx.



Abbreviations and symbols 273

4.1.2. By groups6 a. LXXo’ 967 88-Syh 813 875 613 (LXXo’ additions) b. LXXθ’ O = V-62-147: Origen’s recension 62′ = 62-147 L = 22-36-48-51-96-231-763: Lucianic recension lI = 311-538; lII = 88-449 in Dn 1:1-10:11a; lII = 88-770 in Dn 10:11b-SusBel; lI + lII = lI’ L′ = L + lI; L’ = L + lII; L′’ = L + lI + lII C = 87-91-490: catenae group c = 49-90-405-764 C′ = C + c Uncials and papyri: A, B, Q, ZVI (fragment), 921 (fragment), 925 (fragment) Minuscules depedent on A, B, Q: A′ = A-106 A’ = A-584 A′’ = A-106-584 B-26-46-130-239 46′ = 46-130 46’ = 46-534 46′’ = 46-130-534 Q-230-233-541 230′ = 230-233 230’ = 230-541 230′’ = 230-233-541

6 The groupings are arranged in this fashion on the separate diptych “Erklärung der Zeichen und Abkürzungen” accompanying J. Ziegler – O. Munnich – D. Fraenkel (ed.), Sus-Dn-Bel.

274

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

Codices mixti: 380 393 407 410 544 (fragment) 588 (only occasionally cited) 590 670 (fragment) 742 (fragment) 921 (fragment) 925 (fragment)7 4.2. Indirect tradition 4.2.1. Versions8 Aeth Ethiopian Arab Arabic Arm Armenian Bo Bohairic Co Coptic Fa Fajumic La Latin Sa Sahidic Sy Syriac (deuterocanonical additions) Syp Syro-Palestinian (especially the deuterocanonical additions) 4.2.2. Greek Fathers9 PsAth. Pseudo-Athanasius Chr. John Chrysostom (in Greek) PsChr. Pseudo-Chrysostom ClemRom. Clement of Rome Cyr. Cyril of Alexandria Eus. Eusebius of Caesarea Hippol. Hippolytus Ir. Irenaeus of Lyons (in Greek) Iust. Justin Martyr Or. Origen Tht. Theodoret of Cyrrhus

7 Greek papyri 921 and 925, though not appearing on the diptych (mentioned in the previous note), have been added from J. Ziegler – O. Munnich – D. Fraenkel (ed.), Sus-Dn-Bel, 153. 8 J. Ziegler – O. Munnich – D. Fraenkel (ed.), Sus-Dn-Bel, 129-136. 9 Abbreviations from J. Ziegler (ed.), Ez, 84-85; J. Ziegler – O. Munnich – D. Fraenkel (ed.), SusDn-Bel, 115-116. For more information about these Fathers’ works and editions, see the combined list of abbreviations for ancient literature p. 275.



Abbreviations and symbols 275

5. Ancient literature10 AN s Can s Et Ver s ANT-M ANT-S AM Abr ep fi Hel Is Jac Jb Lc off Ps sp vg AMst Rm AR Gr PsAth. hae AU an

Anonymous Sermones 11, edited by Aline Canellis sermons found and edited by Raymond Étaix Collectio Arriana Veronensis, Sermones 15 Mozarabic Antiphonary Sinai Antiphonary Ambrose of Milan De Abraham Epistularum libri 1-10; Epistulae extra collectionem De fide ad Gratianum Augustum De Helia et ieiunio De Isaac vel anima De Iacob et vita beata De interpellatione Iob et David Expositio Evangelii secundum Lucam De officiis Explanatio XII psalmorum De spiritu Sancto libri 3 De virginibus Ambrosiaster Commentarius in Epistulam ad Romanos Arnobius the Younger Liber ad Gregoriam in palatio constitutam Pseudo-Athanasius Contra omnes haereses11 Augustine of Hippo De natura et origine animae libri 4

10 The witnesses abbreviated by capital letters follow the system of the Vetus Latina-Institut. See Gry– Frede – Fischer, Répertoire général (52007). They are cited according to their critical editions as given in the 2013 online update of this work within the Vetus Latina Database, except for a few cases in which even that is out of date and a newer edition has been indicated by a footnote. Names abbreviated in small capital letters, i.e. non-Christian writers absent from the Répertoire, follow the abbreviations found online at “Thesaurus linguae Latinae. Index librorum scriptorum inscriptionum ex quibus exempla afferuntur” (2020) https://www.thesaurus.badw.de/tll-digital/index.html. The webpage is an updated version of Thesaurus linguae Latinae. Index librorum scriptorum inscriptionum ex quibus exempla afferuntur (Lipsiae 21990). Their editions are indicated in the footnotes. Greek Fathers as witnesses to the LXX, whose editions are likewise indicated in the footnotes, are abbreviated with only the initial capital letter capitalized, according to J. Ziegler (ed.), Ez, 84-85; J. Ziegler – O. Munnich – D. Fraenkel (ed.), Sus-Dn-Bel, 115-116, 125-129. 11 Athanasius of Alexandria, “Κατα πασων των αιρεσεων = Contra omnes haereses,” Τα ευρισκομενα παντα = Opera omnia quae exstant. Tomus IV (ed. Monachi ordinis S. Benedicti e Congregatione S. Mauri – J.-P. Migne) (PG 28; Lutetiae Parisiorum 1857) 501-524.

son

276

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER



ci De civitate Dei libri 22 corr De correptione et gratia do De doctrina christiana libri 4 ep Epistularium Ex Quaestiones de Exodo (= Quaestionum in Heptateuchum liber 2) Fau Contra Faustum Manichaeum libri 33 gr De gratia et libero arbitrio12 Jb Adnotationum in Iob liber leg Contra adversarium legis et prophetarum libri 2 loc Locutionum in Heptateuchum libri 7 mor De moribus ecclesiae catholicae et de moribus Manichaeorum libri 2 pat De patientia Ps Enarrationes in Psalmos q De diversis quaestionibus LXXXIII liber re Retractationum libri 2 s Sermones s Dol Sermones found and edited by Franc̜ ois Dolbeau tri De Trinitate libri 15 PS-AU Pseudo-Augustine alt Altercatio Ecclesiae et Synagogae rhe De rhetorica liber s Cai sermones edited by Armand B. Caillau s Mai sermones edited by Angelo Mai spe Liber de divinis scripturis sive Speculum quod fertur S. Augustini Acta vel Passiones vel Vitae Sanctorum A-SS Helia Vita S. Heliae13 Per Passio Ss. Perpetuae et Felicitatis Pionius Passio Ss. Pionii et sociorum eius martyrum BAR Epistula Barnabae Barn. Epistula Barnabae (in Greek)14 Brev. Goth. Gothic Breviary Caes. Gaius Julius Caesar Gall. Commentarii belli Gallici15 12 Augustine of Hippo, “De gratia et libero arbitrio,” Späte Schriften zur Gnadenlehre. De gratia et libero arbitrio, De praedestinatione sanctorum libri duo (olim: De praedestinatione sanctorum, De dono perseverantiae) (ed. V. H. Drecoll – C. Scheerer) (CSEL 105; Berlin – Boston 2019) 131-166. 13 V. Burrus – M. Conti (ed.), The Life of Saint Helia. Critical Edition, Translation, Introduction, and Commentary (OECT; Oxford 2013). 14 Prigent – Kraft, Épître de Barnabé. 15 G. J. Caesar, Commentarii rerum gestarum. I. Bellum Gallicum (ed. W. Hering) (BSGRT; Leipzig 1987).



Abbreviations and symbols 277

Cic. off Chr.

M. Tullius Cicero De officiis16 John Chrysostom (in Greek), Interpretatio in Danielem prophetam17 cit an unpublished catena text attributed to Chrysostom18 PsChr. Pseudo-Chrysostom19 pa De patientia20 sa De salute animae21 CHRO Chromatius of Aquileia Mt Tractatus in Matthaeum s Sermones CHRY John Chrysostom (in Latin) I,859 Homilia de tribus pueris (of Latin origin), [CHRY] lap De reparatione lapsi Clement of Rome ClemRom. ep Epistula I ad Corinthios22 CO Ecumenical Councils CU-D Cummianus of Durrow ep Epistola ad Segienum Hiensem abbatem de controversia paschali CY Cyprian of Carthage ep Epistularium Fo Ad Fortunatum Cicero, Les devoirs. I. Introduction, livre 1. II. Livres 2-3 (ed. M. Testard) (BLet; Paris 1965, 1970) I-II. John Chrysostom, “Δανιηλ (1835)”; cf. Idem, “Δανιηλ (1862)”. Concerning Migne’s unacknowledged reliance on the 1835 edition for PG 47-64, see G. Bady, “L’editio Parisina altera des œuvres de Jean Chrysostome et la Patrologie grecque de Migne,” ErA 4 (2012) 1-17. 18 Cf. J. Ziegler – O. Munnich – D. Fraenkel (ed.), Sus-Dn-Bel, 128. 19 Concerning Migne’s reliance on the 1837 edition, see Bady, “L’editio Parisina”. 20 John Chrysostom, “Περὶ ὑπομονῆς. Καὶ τοῦ μὴ πικρῶς κλαίειν τοῦς τελευτῶντας = De patientia. Et quod mortui non amare lugendi sint,” Opera omnia quæ exstant, uel quæ eius nomine circumferuntur. Ad mss. codices Gallicanos, Vaticanos, Anglicanos, Germanicosque. Tomus IX, pars II (ed. B. de Montfaucon et al.) (Parisiis 21837) 896-905; Idem, “Περὶ ὑπομονῆς. Καὶ τοῦ μὴ πικρῶς κλαίειν τοῦς τελευτῶντας = De patientia. Et quod mortui non amare lugendi sint,” Τα ευρισκομενα παντα = Opera omnia quae exstant, uel quae eius nomine circumferuntur. Ad mss. codices Gallicanos, Vaticanos, Anglicanos, Germanicosque. Tomus IX (ed. B. de Montfaucon et al.) (PG 60; Parisiis 1862) 723-736. 21 John Chrysostom, “Περὶ σωτηρίας ψυχῆς = De salute animae,” Opera omnia quæ exstant, uel quæ eius nomine circumferuntur. Ad mss. codices Gallicanos, Vaticanos, Anglicanos, Germanicosque. Tomus IX, pars II (ed. B. de Montfaucon et al.) (Parisiis 21837) 913-917; Idem, “Περὶ σωτηρίας ψυχῆς = De salute animae,” Τα ευρισκομενα παντα = Opera omnia quae exstant, uel quae eius nomine circumferuntur. Ad mss. codices Gallicanos, Vaticanos, Anglicanos, Germanicosque. Tomus IX (ed. B. de Montfaucon et al.) (PG 60; Parisiis 1862) 735-738. 22 Clement of Rome, “Epistula I,” Patrum apostolicorum opera. Textum ad fidem codicum et Graecorum et Latinorum adhibitis praestantissimis editionibus (ed. O. De Gebhardt – A. Harnack – T. Zahn) (Lipsiae 51906) 1-35. 16

17

278

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

hab De habitu virginum lap De lapsis mort De mortalitate op De opere et eleemosynis or De dominica oratione pat De bono patientiae te Ad Quirinum (Testimoniorum libri 3) un De catholicae ecclesiae unitate PS-CY Pseudo-Cyprian cent De centesima, sexagesima, tricesima (scilicet mercede) mart De laude martyrii Nov Ad Novatianum pa De pascha computus reb De rebaptismate Cyr. Cyril of Alexandria (in Greek) ado De adoratione et cultu in spiritu et veritate23 CYR Cyril of Alexandria (in Latin) :CO 1,5 Scholia de incarnatione Unigeniti (cf. CO) DRA Blossius Aemilius Dracontius lau De laudibus Dei libri 3 EUCH Eucherius of Lyons inst Instructionum ad Salonium libri 2 int Formulae spiritalis intellegentiae, [EUCH] Eus. Eusebius of Caesarea dem Demonstratio evangelica24 ecl Eclogae propheticae25 EUS-E Eusebius of Emesa h Homiliae EUS-V Eusebius of Vercelli ep Epistulae 3 Evagrius Gallicus, Altercatio legis inter Simonem Iudaeum et EVA-G Theophilum Christianum 23 Cited from Cyril of Alexandria, “Περι της εν πνευματι και αληθεια προσκυνησεως και λατρειας = De adoratione et cultu in spiritu et veritate,” Τα ευρισκομενα παντα = Opera quae reperiri potuerunt omnia. Tomus I (Editio Parisiensis altera duobus tomis auctior et emendatior) (ed. J. Aubert – J.-P. Migne) (PG 68; Lutetiae Parisiorum 1864) 133-1150. 24 Eusebius of Caesarea, Eusebius Werke. VI. Die Demonstratio evangelica (ed. I. A. Heikel) (GCS 23; Berlin 1913). 25 Cited from Eusebius of Caesarea, Eclogae propheticae. E codice manuscripti Bibliothecae Caesareae Vindobonensis (ed. T. Gaisford) (Oxonii 1842); reprinted in “Eclogae propheticae,” Τα ευρισκομενα παντα = Opera omnia quae exstant. Tomus IV (ed. T. Gaisford – J.-P. Migne) (PG 22; Lutetiae Parisiorum 1857) 1017–1262.



Abbreviations and symbols 279

FO-A Fortunatianus of Aquileia, Commentarii in Evangelia26 FIR Iulius Firmicus Maternus Siculus err De errore profanarum religionum PS-FIR con PS-FIR Iulius Firmicus Maternus Siculus con Consultationes Zacchei christiani et Apollonii philosophi Frontin. S. Iulius Frontinus aq De aquaeductu urbis Romae27 GAU Gaudentius of Brescia, Tractatus 21 GR-I Gregory of Illiberis (Elvira) tr Tractatus Origenis Ct Epithalamium sive Explanatio in Canticis Canticorum Hesychius of Salona, quoted by AU ep 198 HI Jerome of Stridon chr Chronicon omnimodae historiae Dn Commentariorum in Danielem libri 3 (despite the title, De Antichristo and De Susanna et Bel in “Liber 4”) ep Epistulae Eph Commentarii in epistulam ad Ephesios libri 3 Ez Commentariorum in Hiezechielem libri 14 Is Explanationum in Esaiam libri 18 Is tr In Esaiam tractatus 2 Jov Adversus Iovinianum libri 2 Mi Commentariorum in Michaeam prophetam libri 2 pr Dn Prologus in Danihele propheta pr Is Prologus in Isaia propheta Ps h In Psalmos homiliae HIL Hilary of Poitiers Mt In Matthaeum commentarius Ps Tractatus super Psalmos tri De Trinitate seu de fide libri 12 Quintus Iulius Hilarianus HILn curs De cursu temporum28 Hippol. Hippolytus, Commentarium in Danielem29 E Met. Hippol. ( ) Commentarium in Danielem, manuscript E (Hippol.Met. in LXXθ’), Fortunatianus of Aquileia, Commentarii. S. J. Frontino, De Aquaeductu Urbis Romae = Los Acueductos de Roma (ed. T. González Rolán) (CHAGL; Madrid 1985). 28 Groupe Hilarianiste, “Le De cursu temporum d’Hilarianus et sa réfutation (CPL 2280 et 2281): Une querelle chronologique à la fin de l’Antiquité. Éditions, traduction, études,” RechAugPat 37 (2013) 131-267. 29 Hippolytus, Werke. Kommentar zu Daniel (ed. G. N. Bonwetsch – M. Richard) (GCS n.s. 7; Berlin 2 2000) 1/1. 26 27

280

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

Cod. Athous Meteoron 573 Commentarium in Danielem, manuscript S Hippol.S ant De antichristo30 INS Inscriptiones Latinae Christianae veteres Justin Martyr Iust. dial Dialogus31 IR Irenaeus of Lyons, Adversus haereses, seu Detectio et eversio falso cognominatae Gnoseos, libri 5 LAC L. Caecilius Firmianus Lactantius epit Epitome divinarum institutionum in Divinarum institutionum libri 7 LUC Lucifer of Cagliari Ath De Athanasio libri 2 con De non conveniendo cum haereticis mor Moriundum esse pro Dei filio par De non parcendo in Deum delinquentibus reg De regibus apostaticis Manil. (Marcus) Manilius, Astronomica32 MAX Maximus of Turin s Sermones s Mu Sermones edited by Almut Mutzenbecher M-Ben Beneventan Missal Vat text of codex Vat. Lat. 10645 M-M Mozarabic Missal NIC Nicetas of Remesiana sp De Spiritus Sancti potentia vig De vigiliis servorum Dei NO Novatian [CY] ep 31 epistula 31 (in Cyprian’s epistolary) pud De bono pudicitiae tri De Trinitate OPT Optatus of Milevis Par Contra Donatistas (to Parmenian) Or. Origen, Contra Celsum33 30 Hippolytus, “Αποδεξις εκ των αγιων γραφων περι Χριστου και περι του αντιχριστου = De antichristo,” Exegetische und homiletische Schriften. II. Hippolyt’s kleinere exegetische und homiletische Schriften (ed. H. Achelis) (GCS 1; Leipzig 1897) 1-47. 31 Justin Martyr, Dialogus cum Tryphone (ed. M. Marcovich) (PTS 47; Berlin 1997). 32 Manilius, Il poema degli astri = Astronomica. I. Libri 1-2. II. Libri 3-5 (ed. E. Flores) (SGL; Roma 3 2011, 2006) I-II. 33 Origen, Contra Celsum. Libri VIII (ed. M. Marcovich) (VigChr.S 54; Leiden – Boston – Köln 2001).



Abbreviations and symbols 281

ORA Orationes Vis Orationale Visigothicum PAC Pacian of Barcelona Nov Contra tractatus Novatianorum pae Sermo de paenitentibus (De paenitentiae institutione sermo) Paulinus of Milan PAU-M Am Vita S. Ambrosii PS-PEL Pseudo-Pelagius Casp 6 letters and tractates edited by Carl P. Caspari Casp 5 De possibilitate non peccandi PHY Physiologus Y Physiologus Latinus, Versio Y Pl. Plato Phd. Phaedo34 Plaut. T. Maccius Plautus Cist. Cistellaria35 PRIM Primasius of Hadrumetum, Commentarius in Apocalypsin PRIS Priscillian of Avila tr Tractatus 11 Quint. M. Fabius Quintilian inst institutio oratoria36 RES-R Roman Responsory RUF Rufinus of Aquileia Bas Homiliae S. Basilii Eus Eusebii Historia Ecclesiastica Gn Origenis in Genesim homiliae 16 Nm Origenis in librum Numeri homiliae 28 Rm Origenis Commentarius in Epistulam ad Romanos sy Expositio symboli Scrib. Larg. Scribonius Largus, Compositiones37 S-Mo Mozarabic Sacramentary SUL Sulpicius Severus chr Chronicorum libri 2 τ Liber Com(m)icus Toletanus τ56.70 τ56 = VL 56, τ70 = VL 70, τ56.70 = VL 56 and VL 70, etc.

Plato, Phaedo (ed. J. Burnet) (Oxford 1911). T. M. Plautus, Comédies. III. Cistellaria, Curculio, Epidicus (ed. A. Ernout) (BLet; Paris 21961). 36 Quintilian, Institutionis oratoriae libri duodecim. I. Libri 1-6. II. Libri 7-12 (ed. M. Winterbottom) (SCBO; Oxonii 1970) I-II. 37 Scribonius Largus, Compositiones (ed. S. Sconocchia) (BSGRT; Leipzig 1983). 34 35

282

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

Tat. Tatian orat Oratio ad Graecos38 Tertullian of Carthage TE an De anima ap Apologeticum ba De baptismo car De carne Christi cas De exhortatione castitatis cor De corona fu De fuga in persecutione hae De praescriptione haereticorum Her Adversus Hermogenem id De idololatria je De ieiunio adversus psychicos Jud Adversus Iudaeos, [TE] Marc Adversus Marcionem libri 5 mon De monogamia nat Ad nationes or De oratione pae De paenitentia pat De patientia Pra Adversus Praxean pud De pudicitia res De resurrectione mortuorum sco Scorpiace spec De spectaculis test De testimonio animae ux Ad uxorem Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Commentarius in Danielem39 Tht. TY Tyconius reg Liber regularum Varro M. Terentius Varro Reatinus Men. Saturarum Menippearum fragmenta40 Vell. Velleius Paterculus, Historiarum ad M. Vinicium consulem libri duo41

Tatian – Theophilus of Antioch, Ad Graecos. Ad Autolycum. Theodoret of Cyrrhus, “Υπομνηημα”. 40 M. T. Varro, Saturarum Menippearum fragmenta (ed. R. Astbury) (BSGRT; Leipzig 1985). 41 Velleius Paterculus, Historiarum ad M. Vinicium consulem libri duo (ed. W. S. Watt) (BSGRT; Leipzig 1988). 38 39



Abbreviations and symbols 283

VER Verecundus of Junca cant Commentarii super cantica ecclesiastica Vg Vulgate42 VICn Victorinus of Poetovium (Ptuj, Slovenia) Apc Commentarius in Apocalypsin fa De fabrica mundi VIC-V Victor of Vita, Historia persecutionis Africanae provinciae Vigilius of Thapsus VIG-T Eut Contra Eutychetem libri 5 sol Solutiones obiectionum Arianorum Pseudo-Vigilius of Thapsus PS-VIG tri De trinitate libri 12 Var Contra Varimadum (Marivadum) Arianum libri 3 VINC-C Vincentius Victor of Caesarea in Mauretania ap AU an (see AU an) ZE Zeno of Verona, Tractatus Sancti Zenonis Veronensis episcopi

42 Two versions are taken into account and discrepancies in the critical text, if any, are noted: Monachi Abbatiae Pontificiae Sancti Hieronymi in Urbe (ed.), Dn; R. Weber – R. Gryson (ed.), Biblia sacra iuxta Vulgatam versionem (Stuttgart 52007).

284

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

6. Modern literature43 AAH AASF.H Aem. AJP AKG(Bo) AcSal.Filol ALLG ANTF AVEU BAC BFR.A Bib. BibOr BSt(F) BCESS BGBE BLet BSGRT BSV CBiblin CBLa CCSL CHAGL CIL CLA CQ CSEL DAFT n.s. EM ErA

Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae. Suomalaisen Tiedeakatemian toimituksia. Humaniora (= Series B) Aemilianense The American Journal of Philology Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte (Bonn) Acta salmanticensia. Estudios filológicos Archiv für lateinische Lexikographie und Grammatik Arbeiten zur Neutestamentlichen Textforschung Arbeten utgivna med understöd af Vilhelm Ekmans Universitetsfond Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos Bibliothèque française et romane. Série A: Manuels et études linguistiques Biblica Biblica et Orientalia Biblische Studien (Freiburg) Bibliothèque des Centres d’Études Supérieures Spécialisés Beiträge zur Geschichte der biblischen Exegese Les Belles Lettres Bibliotheca Scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana Biblia Sacra iuxta Latinam Vulgatam versionem. Romae Cahiers de Biblindex Collectanea Biblica Latina Corpus Christianorum. Series Latina Colección Hispánica de Autores Griegos y Latinos Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum Codices Latini Antiquiores The Classical Quarterly Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum Pubblicazioni del dipartimento di archeologia, filologia classica e loro tradizioni dell’Università di Genova. nuova serie Emerita Eruditio Antiqua

43 Whenever possible, Siegfried Schwertner’s glossary of abbreviations has been followed; IATG3 – Internationales Abkürzungsverzeichnis für Theologie und Grenzgebiete. Zeitschriften, Serien, Lexika, Quellenwerke mit bibliographischen Angaben (Berlin – Boston 32014). Other abbreviations have been coined according to the same system.



GCS GCS n.s.

Abbreviations and symbols 285

Griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte Griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte. Neue Folge GNO Gregorii Nysseni Opera GRL Geschichte der römischen Litteratur bis zum Gesetzgebungswerk des Kaisers Justinian HAW Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft ICC International Critical Commentary on the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments IGUR Inscriptiones Graecae urbis Romae ILPP International library of psychology, philosophy and scientic method ItD Italia Dialettale JGG Jahresbericht der Görres-Gesellschaft JThS n.s. The Journal of Theological Studies. New Series Koin.(N) Koinōnia (Naples) Koin.(N).ST Koinōnia (Naples). Studi e testi LCP Latinitas Christianorum Primaeva. Studia ad Sermonem Latinum Christianum Pertinentia LMA Lexikon des Mittelalters MASL.L Mémoires de l’Académie des sciences, belles-lettres et arts de Lyon. Classe des lettres MVAW.L Mededelingen der Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen. afdeling Letterkunde MD La Maison-Dieu MiSU Mitteilungen des Septuaginta-Unternehmens MnS Mnemosyne. Supplementum NDPAC Nuovo Dizionario Patristico e di Antichità Cristiane NT Novum Testamentum (Leiden) OCPM Oxford Classical and Philosophical Monographs OECS Oxford Early Christian Studies OECT Oxford Early Christian Texts Pal. Pallas PG Patrologiae cursus completus. Series Graeca. Accurante JacquesPaul Migne PL Patrologiae cursus completus. Series Latina. Accurante JacquesPaul Migne PTS Patristische Texte und Studien REAug Revue des Études Augustiniennes RechAugPat Recherches Augustiniennes et Patristiques RBen Revue Bénédictine REL Revue des Études Latines

286

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

SCBO SC SCSt SE SEAug SeL Sept. Sept.S SGL SIISA SIDIC SQAW SSIR SVSL StPatr TAB TaS TECC THiB ThBib TLL TLLex TLSM ThQ TU StPatr VigChr VigChr.S VL VT WBC ZAC ZAW

Scriptorum Classicorum Bibliotheca Oxoniensis Sources Chrétiennes Septuagint and Cognate Studies Sacris Erudiri Studia ephemeridis Augustinianum Storia e Letteratura Septuaginta (Göttingen) Septuaginta. Supplementum Scrittori Greci e Latini Studi. Istituto italiano per la storia antica Service International de Documentation Judéo-Chrétienne Schriften und Quellen der Alten Welt Skrifter utgivna av Svenska Institutet i Rom Skrifter utgivna av Vetenskaps-Societeten i Lund = Publications of the New Society of Letters at Lund see TU Texte und Arbeiten. Beuron Texts and Studies. Contributions to Biblical and Patristic Literature Textos y Estudios “Cardenal Cisneros” de la Biblia Políglota Matritense Textual History of the Bible Theologische Bibliothek Thesaurus Linguae Latinae Totius Latinitatis Lexicon Trends in Linguistics, Studies and Monographs Theologische Quartalschrift Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur. Studia Patristica Vigiliae Christianae Vigiliae Christianae. Supplements Vetus Latina. Die Reste der altlateinischen Bibel Vetus Testamentum Word Biblical Commentary Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum = Journal of Ancient Christianity Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

85 KEVIN ZILVERBERG

109264

TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL •  THE FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER ISBN: 978-84-00-10926-4

9 788400

Elvira María Martín Contreras, Apéndices masoréticos. Códice M1 de la Universidad Complutense de Madrid, 2004. Emilia Fernández Tejero, Las Masoras del Libro de Génesis. Códice M1 de la Universidad Complutense de Madrid, 2004. María Josefa de Azcárraga Servert, Las Masoras del Libro de Levítico. Códice M1 de la Universidad Complutense de Madrid, 2004. Natalio Fernández Marcos, María Victoria Spottorno Díaz-Caro y José Manuel Cañas Reíllo, Índice griego-hebreo del texto Antioqueno en los Libros Históricos (2 vols.), 2005. Emma Abate, La fine del regno di Sedecia, 2008. Emilia Fernández Tejero, Las Masoras del Libro de Josué. Códice M1 de la Universidad Complutense de Madrid, 2009. Natalio Fernández Marcos, Filología bíblica y humanismo, 2012. Lourdes García Ureña, El Apocalipsis: pautas literarias de lectura, 2013. Jesús Caos Huerta Rodríguez, Exégesis bíblica en Clemente de Alejandría: uso e interpretación de las citas de los LXX (Pentateuco), 2018. Leonardo Pessoa da Silva Pinto, Different literary editions in 2 Samuel 10-12. A comparative study of the hebrew and greek textual traditions, 2019. José Francisco García Juan, La traducción latina interlineal de los LXX en la Biblia Políglota Complutense: Libro de Job, 2020. Juan Pedro Monferrer Sala, Cantar de Cantares, edición crítica y estudio de la versión árabe contenida en el códice n.º 1625 de El Escorial, 2020. Juan Antonio Ruiz Rodrigo, Desde la atalaya hermenéutica de Isaías, la función literária y teológica de Is 12 dentro del libro de Isaías, 2021.

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

This study traces the textual history of the Old Latin, or Vetus Latina, version of the Book of Daniel and its additions (Sus-Dn-Bel), from the turn of the third century in North Africa to AD 360. The work focuses on the patristic evidence, dedicating a chapter to each of the following: Tertullian, the Adversus Iudaeos attributed to him, Cyprian of Carthage, minor witnesses to Dn, and Lucifer of Cagliari in Sardinia, Italy. The fragmentary manuscript evidence and other Fathers’ citations are treated in relation to the Fathers just listed. Each chapter presents the results of text-critical analysis, which situate the Old Latin texts under consideration within the broader context of other witnesses to Old Latin and Greek scriptures. This approach allows one to recognize, for example, the increasing prominence of the Theodotionic Greek text of Sus-Dn-Bel over the Septuagintal one as the Vorlage for Latin biblical texts. Linguistic analyses inform and complement the text-critical ones. Within the entire span of Latin citations from Tertullian to Lucifer, one encounters remarkable linguistic characteristics, some morphological, many lexical, and still others syntactical.

Kevin Zilverberg (Potter County, South Dakota, USA, 1981) earned his Doctorate in Sacred Scripture from the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome, for which he won the Bibeau Award for the best doctorate among the eight defended at the Institute in 20192020. He currently serves as Assistant Professor of Sacred Scripture at Saint Paul Seminary School of Divinity, of the University of St. Thomas, in St. Paul, Minnesota, USA. Zilverberg is also the founding director of Saint Paul Seminary Press and the Institute for Catholic Theological Formation, as well as the general editor of the Catholic Theological Formation Series. His publications usually treat the Latin Bible, from the Old Latin version of Latin Christianity’s formative centuries, to the Neo-Vulgate of the twentieth. These scholarly essays emphasize textual and linguistic matters, which sometimes lead to theological and pastoral observations. Zilverberg has also coedited three books: Approaches to Greek and Latin Language, Literature and History: Kατὰ Σχολήν (Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2019); The Revelation of Your Words: The New Evangelization and the Role of the Seminary Professor of Sacred Scripture (St. Paul, MN: Saint Paul Seminary Press, 2021); and Piercing the Clouds: Lectio Divina and Preparation for Ministry (St. Paul, MN: Saint Paul Seminary Press, 2021).

Kevin Zilverberg

TEXTOS Y ESTUDIOS CARDENAL CISNEROS Últimos títulos publicados

CSIC

CONSEJO SUPERIOR DE INVESTIGACIONES CIENTÍFICAS

Cover: Daniel and Susanna, Codex Gothicus Legionensis, ca. 960 (© Museo San Isidoro de León).

85 KEVIN ZILVERBERG

109264

TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL •  THE FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER ISBN: 978-84-00-10926-4

9 788400

Elvira María Martín Contreras, Apéndices masoréticos. Códice M1 de la Universidad Complutense de Madrid, 2004. Emilia Fernández Tejero, Las Masoras del Libro de Génesis. Códice M1 de la Universidad Complutense de Madrid, 2004. María Josefa de Azcárraga Servert, Las Masoras del Libro de Levítico. Códice M1 de la Universidad Complutense de Madrid, 2004. Natalio Fernández Marcos, María Victoria Spottorno Díaz-Caro y José Manuel Cañas Reíllo, Índice griego-hebreo del texto Antioqueno en los Libros Históricos (2 vols.), 2005. Emma Abate, La fine del regno di Sedecia, 2008. Emilia Fernández Tejero, Las Masoras del Libro de Josué. Códice M1 de la Universidad Complutense de Madrid, 2009. Natalio Fernández Marcos, Filología bíblica y humanismo, 2012. Lourdes García Ureña, El Apocalipsis: pautas literarias de lectura, 2013. Jesús Caos Huerta Rodríguez, Exégesis bíblica en Clemente de Alejandría: uso e interpretación de las citas de los LXX (Pentateuco), 2018. Leonardo Pessoa da Silva Pinto, Different literary editions in 2 Samuel 10-12. A comparative study of the hebrew and greek textual traditions, 2019. José Francisco García Juan, La traducción latina interlineal de los LXX en la Biblia Políglota Complutense: Libro de Job, 2020. Juan Pedro Monferrer Sala, Cantar de Cantares, edición crítica y estudio de la versión árabe contenida en el códice n.º 1625 de El Escorial, 2020. Juan Antonio Ruiz Rodrigo, Desde la atalaya hermenéutica de Isaías, la función literária y teológica de Is 12 dentro del libro de Isaías, 2021.

THE TEXTUAL HISTORY OF OLD LATIN DANIEL FROM TERTULLIAN TO LUCIFER

This study traces the textual history of the Old Latin, or Vetus Latina, version of the Book of Daniel and its additions (Sus-Dn-Bel), from the turn of the third century in North Africa to AD 360. The work focuses on the patristic evidence, dedicating a chapter to each of the following: Tertullian, the Adversus Iudaeos attributed to him, Cyprian of Carthage, minor witnesses to Dn, and Lucifer of Cagliari in Sardinia, Italy. The fragmentary manuscript evidence and other Fathers’ citations are treated in relation to the Fathers just listed. Each chapter presents the results of text-critical analysis, which situate the Old Latin texts under consideration within the broader context of other witnesses to Old Latin and Greek scriptures. This approach allows one to recognize, for example, the increasing prominence of the Theodotionic Greek text of Sus-Dn-Bel over the Septuagintal one as the Vorlage for Latin biblical texts. Linguistic analyses inform and complement the text-critical ones. Within the entire span of Latin citations from Tertullian to Lucifer, one encounters remarkable linguistic characteristics, some morphological, many lexical, and still others syntactical.

Kevin Zilverberg (Potter County, South Dakota, USA, 1981) earned his Doctorate in Sacred Scripture from the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome, for which he won the Bibeau Award for the best doctorate among the eight defended at the Institute in 20192020. He currently serves as Assistant Professor of Sacred Scripture at Saint Paul Seminary School of Divinity, of the University of St. Thomas, in St. Paul, Minnesota, USA. Zilverberg is also the founding director of Saint Paul Seminary Press and the Institute for Catholic Theological Formation, as well as the general editor of the Catholic Theological Formation Series. His publications usually treat the Latin Bible, from the Old Latin version of Latin Christianity’s formative centuries, to the Neo-Vulgate of the twentieth. These scholarly essays emphasize textual and linguistic matters, which sometimes lead to theological and pastoral observations. Zilverberg has also coedited three books: Approaches to Greek and Latin Language, Literature and History: Kατὰ Σχολήν (Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2019); The Revelation of Your Words: The New Evangelization and the Role of the Seminary Professor of Sacred Scripture (St. Paul, MN: Saint Paul Seminary Press, 2021); and Piercing the Clouds: Lectio Divina and Preparation for Ministry (St. Paul, MN: Saint Paul Seminary Press, 2021).

Kevin Zilverberg

TEXTOS Y ESTUDIOS CARDENAL CISNEROS Últimos títulos publicados

CSIC

CONSEJO SUPERIOR DE INVESTIGACIONES CIENTÍFICAS

Cover: Daniel and Susanna, Codex Gothicus Legionensis, ca. 960 (© Museo San Isidoro de León).