No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 February 2009
The earliest witness to a Latin version of Acts is found in the citations of the African church father, Tertullian. This means that the Latin version of this book probably originated in the latter part of the second century. The exact date and place of its origin are, however, obscure. A revision during the early part of the third century resulted in the first identifiable text-type of this version, the African text (K), witnessed to by Cyprian, the Fleury Palimpsest (55, h) and two writings by Augustine.
2 The sigla for reference to the manuscripts and Latin fathers are constantly those employed in the Vetus Latina series, cf. Fischer, B., Verzeichnis der Sigel für Handschriften und Kirchenschriftsteller (Vetus Latina 1; Freiburg: Herder, 1949)Google Scholar; Frede, H. J., Kirchen-schriftsteller: Verzeichnis and Sigel (Vetus Latina 1/1; Freiburg: Herder, 1981)Google Scholar, with its two Aktualisierungshefte, appearing in 1984 and 1988 (Vetus Latina 1/la and 1/lb).
3 Cf. Petzer, J. H., ‘Texts and Text Types in the Latin Version of Acts’ (to appear in the Festschrift for H. J. Frede and W. Thiele in 1993) for a more detailed overview of the history of the Latin version of this book.Google Scholar Other reconstructions can be found in Jülicher, A., ‘Kritische Analyse der lateinischen Übersetzung der Apostelgeschichte’, ZNW 15 (1914) 163–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Fischer, B., ‘Das Neue Testament in lateinischer Sprache: Der gegenwärtige Stand seiner Erforschung und seine Bedeutung für die griechische Textgeschichte’, Beiträge zur Geschichte der lateinischen Bibeltexte (Aus der Geschichte der lateinischen Bibeltexte 12; ed. Frede, H. J.; Freiburg: Herder, 1986) 194–5Google Scholar, originally published in Die alten Übersetzungen des Neuen Testaments, die Kirchenväterzitate und Lektionare (Arbeiten zur neutestamentlichen Textforschung 5; ed. K. Aland; Berlin: De Gruyter, 1972) 1–92.Google Scholar
4 Cf. Fischer, Das Neue Testament in lateinischer Sprache, 159–88 for a description of the methodology and principles of the research on the Old Latin text in general.
5 As was the case with other books of the New Testament, cf. e.g. Frede, H. J. (ed.), Epistula ad Ephesios (Vetus Latina 24/1; Freiburg: Herder, 1962–1964) 29*.Google Scholar
6 What is being presented here is part of the results of research on the general history of the Latin version of Acts, the purpose of which was to investigate all available information in a representative part of Acts in an attempt to gain a general overview of the history of the Latin version of Acts. Acts 1–6 were chosen as the sample chapters, because more than one third of all the citations from or allusions to Acts in Latin come from these chapters. The present study thus focuses on these chapters. I am grateful and greatly indebted to Prof. H. J. Frede, director of the Vetus Latina Institute, for making available to me the vast resources of the Institute, without which this research could not have been carried out.
7 Cf. e.g. Frede, Ad Ephesios, 35*. 36*; Thiele, W., Die lateinischen Texte des 1. Petrus-briefes (Aus der Geschichte der lateinischen Bibel 5; Freiburg: Herder, 1965) 110.Google Scholar
8 Not all of these manuscripts contain the whole of Acts 1–6. 32 and τ56 are lectionaries which, together with 57 and 55, contain parts of Acts. 60 and 52 contain only a few verses of chapters 1 and 6 respectively. The statistics presented here represent the statistics for the extant parts of those manuscripts.
9 Because of the large-scale mixture in the Old Latin witnesses, it is often difficult to secure the reading of the pre-Vulgate European text-types, particularly when witnesses to these texts agree with the Vulgate and when only one or two witnesses are involved. In the lists of readings presented below, only fixed and secure examples have been used, i.e. examples of which the evidence rests on more than one good witness to the text-types involved. The readings are selected and therefore represent only part of the total agreements between the two text-types. The emphasis is on vocabulary.
10 Again the readings are selected and therefore represent only part of the total agreements between the two texts. The emphasis is again on vocabulary.
11 In an attempt to gain an overview of the position of the Vulgate within the general history of the Greek New Testament, I calculated the agreements of the Vulgate (i.e. all of the Vulgate and not only instances where it disagreed from other Latin text-types) with NA26, representing the Alexandrian text, GNTMT (Hodges, Z. C., Farstad, A. L. [eds.], The Greek New Testament according to the Majority Text [Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1982])Google Scholar, representing the Byzantine Text and the Western text in Boismard and Lamouille's edition of Acts (ed. Boismard, M.-E. & Lamouille, A., Le Texte Occidental des Actes des Apôtres [ 2 vols.; Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les civilisations 17, 1984])Google Scholar in all instances where there are differences between at least two of these editions. The evidence for chapter 1 alone was so clear that there was no necessity to go beyond this chapter with the calculations.
12 I.e. NA26 and GNTMT.
13 These statistics are relevant for Acts 1 to 6.
14 Again all the readings of the Vulgate, and not only the typical Vulgate readings, were considered.
15 The evidence for the Greek text was largely based upon the apparatuses of Von Soden, Tischendorf8 and NA26. Apart from NA26, which has a very limited nature, the other two sources are much out-dated. This means that the conclusions presented here might be misleading, although, in view of the overwhelming nature of the evidence, one would not expect the general pattern to change in the light of more abundant evidence.