NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY
Does the Gothic Bible Represent Idiomatic Gothic?--Anlnvestigation Based Primarily on the Use of the Present Participle in the Gothic Bible; With Some Corroborating Facts Drawn from Other Materials.
Abstract of a 'Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate School in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
Department of German
By MICHAEL METLEN
Evanston, Illinois June, 1932 4291?7 'hlH i 6 l ~Jll
x/t-'1 : I ,\I,~)~
CONTENTS
Page Introduction ...... 5 Section I. Frequency of the Participles...... 9 Greek Participles Not Rendered in Gothic by the Present Participle ...... 14 Gothic Present Participles without Greek Participial Equivalents ...... 16 Gothic Present Participles for Which There Are No Words in the Greek Text ...... 20 Frequency in the Use of the Gothic Present Par ticiple Interpreted ...... 21 Word-Order of the Gothic Present Participle...... 24 Additional Syntactical Features of the Gothic Pres- ent Participle ...... 28 Progressive Forms with Wisan ...... 29 Progressive Forms with Wairthan...... 33 Idiomatic Phrases ...... 36 Professor Curme's Article...... 41 Summary of Principal Conclusions...... 46 Bibliography ...... 48 Curriculum Vitae ...... 49 INTRODUCTION There are, in the field of the study of Gothic, several groups of scholars with different views as regards the question whether or not the Gothic Bible translation represents idiomatic Gothic speech; first, those who are of the opinion that the Gothic Bible is really good and correct Gothic, such as was spoken by the Goths themselves; secondly, those who hold that it is merely some sort of an interlinear version; and thirdly, those who are steering a middle course between these two extremes. These differing views have as yet not been completely reconciled. They are set forth in the literature on the matter in question. A bibliography of the more noteworthy works and other publications bearing on this topic up to 1920 is given in Wilhelm Streitberg's Gotisches Elementarbuch, Hei delberg, 1920, partly in the Introduction, and partly through out the several chapters of the book. Streitberg himself says (p. 33) : "Es liegt in der Natur der Sache, dass sich die Ubertragung so genau als moglich an den Wortlaut der Vor lage anschliesst . . . Nur vorgefaste Meinung kann das Werk des Gotenbischofs in die unmittelbare Nahe der Interlinear versionen rlicken." Streitberg is thus a representative of the middle course group mentioned above, inclining apparently to the idea that the translation in question is more or less good Gothic. Another representative work is The Gothic Version of the Gospels, by S. W. S. Friedrichsen, Oxford, 1926. It favors the idea of the essentially literal character of the translation. An exponent of the hypothesis that the Gothic Bible rep resents good and correct Gothic, as the Goths used to speak it themselv.es, is Prof. George 0. Curme in his article ls the Gothic Bible Gothic? published in the Journal of English and Germanic Philology, X, 151 ff, and X, 335 ff. He explains the apparently great similarity of the syntax of the Gothic and Greek texts by supposing that these two languages had reached, at the time the Gothic Bible was translated, an iden-
5 1
GOTHIC BIBLE INVESTIGATION GOTHIC BIBLE INVESTIGATION 7 ::al development in matters of syntax, and that the prac ::ally word-for-word character of the translation is owing Streitberg is a Syrian (Antiochian) text with occasional · this circumstance. (Cf. p. 41 ff.) Western readings, the problem being to ascertain which of In trying to contribute, if possible, to the solution of this th~ ~estern readings in the Codex Argenteus go back to the ~oblem, my method of approach has been to first collect all or1gmal translation." And on p. 10: "In most cases, however, 1e present participles of the Gothic text, collate them with whe:e the C. A. presents a Western ... r eading, it is im 1e participles of the Greek text and then draw such con possible to say whether this derives from the Wulfilian Greek usions as seemed to be justified on the basis of the material or from a later revision with a Gr.eek MS of Western char~ ·rived at. In doing so, recourse was also had to the Vulgate acter, or from the Old Latin version." And at the beginning ld other Latin Bible texts, as well as to several Anglo-Saxon of the next paragraph: "There is no doubt that the Old Latin ible MSS. is in many places responsible." The Greek text used for above purpose is that of Streit Thus the fact seems to remain that the Gothic text extant ~rg's Gotische Bibel, Heidelberg, 1919. This text is that of does not represent faithfully the original translation but that ukian the Martyr (died 312); cf. Got. Bibel, p. XXXV. Of it is the text of later copies, made in Italy, the ho~1 e of the :reitberg's text Friedrichsen (The Gothic Version of the L atin Bible whose influence ought not to be underestimated. ospels, p. 9) says: "That Streitberg has not given us the Next, these copies were made as late as the sixth century, ~ . .,. hence far removed from the time the original. translation was ~ry text from which 'Wulfila translated the Bible,' goes with- 1t saying; the Greek Urtext cannot possibly be recovered so made. Again, the bilingual fragments extant show that the 1 ng as our knowledge of the Gothic Gospels is limited to a Goths were also interested in the Latin Bible, a fact which ngle manuscript. But Streitberg has given us a type of text t~nded to open the gates wide to mutual influencing, inten hich differs so little from the mother-text that must have tional as well as unintentional. Some discrepancies occurring .in befor.e the translator or the translators of the Gothic in the Gothic text are doubtless to be charged also to the ospels, that I am satisfied to base my work upon it, confident oversight or .carelessness of the transcriber·, others are due to tat the accuracy of my conclusions cannot materially be ~he zeal of revisers; and still others to glosses written orig "fected."1 And he continues (ibid.): "The Greek text of mally on the margin, but which from there by and by entered into the text. Again, parallel passages lingering in the mind 1 Cf. von Soden, Die Schriften des Ne1ien Testame ntes, II, p. x, of the translator or transcriber could not but h ave a t endency, >te 1: "Die Rekonstruktion der. g riechischen Vorlage des Goten bei :reitberg ist leider nicht so gena u, wie es zu wUnschen wii.re," with t Here we have perhaps to think of those Goths of the second third lreitberg's statement in the Preface to the second edition of his etc., generatio.ns w?o were born in Italy and, like the children of foreig~ otische Bibel, p. xi ff.: "Der griechische Text [of the first edition of parents born ID this coui;it~·y , were g radually forgetting the lang uage of l09) ist unverandert geblieben. Hatte ich freie Hand gehabt, so wUrde their anc_e~tors and acqmr~ng Latin as the tongue with which they were h ihn an mancher Stelle umgestaltet haben, freilich nicht im Sinne best familiar. That especially these Latin Goths found the Gothic Bible .ilichers und Litzmanns, nicht im Sinne einer Annaherung der grieehi (particularly if it was not written in idiomatic Gothic) difficult to under .hen Fassung an den Wortlaut des gotischen Textes. Denn eine solche stand and were hence desirous of having both the Gothic and t he Latin nnaherung !st nur unter der Voraussetzung mogllcb, dass Wulfilas t ex~ sid~ by side for ready reference, is easy to comprehend. The Gothic bertragung in kaum veranderter Gestalt auf uns gekommen sei. Diese Latm bilingual. versions. possibly owe their origin to just this circum nnahme trifft jedoch nicht zu ... "- Von Soden refers to JUlicher as stance. For be1Dg born ID Italy, the Latin Goths were less familiar with s authority, while Streitberg discla ims him, but he acknowledges ( p. the Greek :vvay of expressing ideas than t heir a ncestors who, born as i, note 2, and p. xxxix) von Soden as having given him valuable aid. they were m the Balkans, had ha d more occasion to meet Greeks and :>th von Soden and Streitberg refer, for JUlicher's views, to Zeitschr. become acquainted with their mode of thinking. Hence the latter were .r deutsches Altertmn, 52, 365 ff. probably more capable of understanding their Hellenizing Bible (if such 1t was) than the former. 1 GOTHIC BIBLE lNVESTIGATION
lbeit unconscious, to level down to a uniform pattern the SECTION I ariant versions of such parallels; or, vice versa, of mixing up FREQUENCY OF THE PARTICIPLES he various readings, regardless of the one just before the ranslator or transcriber. And it must not be forgotten In Matthew I have counted 1741 Gothic present participles ither that the copies which have come down to us were made with Greek equivalents in participial form, and 13 without y East-Gothic transcribers from West-Gothic originals. This participial equivalents in Greek, making a total of 187 Gothic 1as probably a great source of corrupting the original text; present participles in 268 verses, amounting to 0.70 participle or although East-Gothic and West-Gothic were essentially to the verse. In the same Gospel there are also 28 Greek he same language, yet in the sixth century, about 300 years participles with no corresponding Gothic present participles; .fter the two branches became separated, considerable differ that is to say, of all the Greek participles which could be nces must have existed. Lastly, our copies probably were represented in Gothic by a present participle, 86 per cent are ranscribed from earlier copies which, in turn, may have been so represented, while 14 per cent are not. The 202 Greek opied from yet more ancient copies, and so forth. All of participles equal 1 participle in 1.33 verses, while the 187 vhich goes to show how far our copies may be removed from Gothic present participles are in the proportion of 1 participle he original version. to 1.45 verses. In John the proportion is as follows : In 550 verses there '( are 137 Gothic present participles with corresponding Greek In this place I wish to express my gratitude to my pro participles, and 5 without such equivalents, making a total ·essors at Northwestern University for their willing help in of 142 Gothic present participles, or an average of 0.26 parti he matter of suggestions of all kinds, and especially to Prof. ciple to the verse. The same Gospel contains 100 Greek )r. George 0. Curme, who was ever ready to discuss matters participles without present participle equivalents in Gothic. vith me, in spite of the fact that our individual points of view Or, in other words, 58 per cent of the Greek participles which vere not always the same. allow of rendering in Gothic by the present participle, are so rendered, while 42 per cent are not. The 237 Greek participles average 1 participle in 2.32 verses, while the 142 Gothic pres ~hicago, October 1, 1932. ent participles average 1 in 3.90 verses. Luke: In 753 verses there are 529 Gothic present parti ciples with Greek equivalents, and 18 without equivalents; total, 547, with an average of 0.70 participle to the verse. Eighty-five Greek participles have no present participle equiv alents in Gothic; i. e., 86 per cent of the Greek participles have their equivalents in Gothic, and 14 per cent have not. The
i Allowance is to be made for a small margin of error in counting. Complete lists of all the Gothic present participles, together with their syntax and Greek equivalents, have been prepared and may be pub lished later. They are omitted here in order not to increase dispropor tionately the scope of this paper.
9 ------~-
10 GOTHIC BIBLE INVESTIGATION GOTHIC BIBLE INVESTIGATION 11 614 Greek participles average 1 participle in 1.23 verses, while participles in 15 verses, averaging 0.13 participle to the verse.' the 547 Gothic participles average 1 in 1.38 verses. In Skeireins there are some 125 Gothic present participles in Mark: In 592 verses there are 422 Gothic present parti 219 lines, averaging 0.57 participle to the line. But since a ciples with Greek equivalents, and 16 without such equiva verse in the Gospels and Epistles is, on the aver age, equal to lents; total, 438, with an average of 0.74 participle to the about 1.64 lines in Skeireins, the 219 lines in question equal verse. Thirty-nine Greek participles have no present participle 134 verses, with an average of 0.93 participle to the verse. equivalents in Gothic; i. e., 92 per cent of the Greek participles TABLE I have equivalents in Gothic, while 8 per cent have not. The SUMMARY OF NUi\IBER OF PRESENT PARTICIPLES I N THE GOTHIC :TEXT 461 Greek participles average 1 participle in 1.28 verses, while Matthew ...... 187 the 438 Gothic participles average 1 in 1.35 verses. John ...... 142 In Paul's Epistle to the Romans there are some 95 Gothic Luke 547 present participles in 188 verses, averaging 0.50 present par Mark ...... 438 ticiple to the verse. In his First Epistle to the Corinthians Total ...... 1314 there are about 67 Gothic present participles in 238 verses, averaging 0.28 participle to the verse. In Second Corinthians Romans ...... 95 there are about 141 Gothic present participles in 256 verses, I Corinthians ...... 67 averaging 0.55 participle to the verse. In the Epistle to the II Corinthians ...... 141 Ephesians there are some 52 Gothic present participles in 139 Ephesians ...... 52 Galatians ...... 31 verses, averaging 0.38 participle to the verse. In the Epistle " Philippians ...... 31 to the Galatians there are some 31 Gothic present participles Colossians ...... 42 in 117 verses, averaging 0.26 participle to the verse. In I Thessalonians ...... 28 Philippians there are some 31 Gothic present participles in 71 II Thessalonians ...... 16 verses, averaging 0.44 participle to the verse. In Colossians I Timothy ...... 72 there are about 42 Gothic present participles in 80 verses, II Timothy ...... 37 Titus ...... 11 averaging 0.53 present participle to the verse. In First Philemon ...... 3 Thessalonians there are about 28 Gothic present participles in 70 verses, averaging 0.40 participle to the verse. In Second Total ...... 626 Thessalonians there are about 16 Gothic present participles in 38 verses, averaging 0.42 participle to the verse. In First Nehemiah 2 Skeireins 125 Timothy there are some 72 Gothic present participles in 107 verses, averaging 0.66 participle to the verse. In Second Grand Total ...... 2067 Timothy there are about 37 Gothic present participles in 77 verses, averaging 0.48 participle to the verse. In the Epistle to Titus there are 11 Gothic present participles in 17 verses, averaging 0.65 participle to the verse. In Philemon there are 1 There are in Nehemiah 33 more verses which have not been 3 Gothic present participles in 13 verses, averaging 0.23 parti counted as they contain nothing but a geneology, or list of pedigree names. There are no present participles in either the Greek or the ciple to the verse. In Nehemiah there are 2 Gothic present Gothic list. 12 GOTHIC BIBLE INVESTIGATION GOTHIC BIBLE INVESTIGATION 13
TABLE II Galatians ...... 0.26 SUMMARY OF NUIIIDER OF VERSES IN THE GOTJ-IIC TEXT Philippians ...... 0.44 Matthew ...... 268 Colossians ...... 0.53 John 550 I Thessalonians ...... 0.40 Luke 753 II Thessalonians ...... 0.42 Mark 592 I Timothy ...... 0.66 II Timothy ...... 0.48 Total ...... 2163 Titus ...... 0.65 Philemon ...... 0.23 Romans ...... 188 Average ...... 0.44 I Corinthians ...... 238 II Corinthians ...... 256 Nehemiah ...... 0.13 Ephesians ...... 139 Skeireins ...... 0.93 Galatians ...... 117 Grand Average ...... 0.52 Philippians ...... 71 TABLE IV Colossians ...... 80 SUi\!!IIARY OF GOTllIC PRESENT PARTICIPLES WllICH HAVE GREEK I Thessalonians ...... 70 PARTICIPIAL EQUIVALENTS, AN D OF THOSE WHICH HAVE NOT II !l'hessalonians ...... 38 1. Greek No Greek I Timothy ...... 107 ., Equivalents Equivalents1 Total II Timothy ...... 77 Matthew ...... 174 13 187 Titus ...... 17 11 John ...... 137 5 142 Philemon ...... 13 •/ Luke ...... 529 16 545 Mark 422 14 Total ...... 1411 436 I ..;, i Total ...... 1262 48 1311 r! Nehemiah 151 Slceireins 134 Romans ...... 89 6 95 I Corinthians ...... 47 20 67 Grand Total ...... 3723 II Corinthians ...... 121 17 141 Ephesians ...... 49 3 52 1 Exclusive of the geneology; cf. p. 11, note. Galatians ...... 28 2 31 Philippians ...... 27 3 31 TABLE III Colossians ...... 38 4 42 SUMMARY OF AVERAGE NUMBER OF PRESENT PARTICIPLES TO A VERSE I Thessalonians ...... 24 4 28 Matthew ...... 0.70 II Thessalonians ...... 15 1 16 John ...... 0.26 I Timothy ...... 52 19 72 Luke ...... 0.70 II Timothy ...... 28 9 37 Mark ...... 0.74 Titus ...... 6 5 11 Average ...... 0.60 Philemon ...... 2 1 3 Romans ...... 0.50 Total ...... 1788 142 1937 I Corinthians ...... 0.28 II Corinthians ...... 0.55 p. ~. Including those mentioned in Section III, p. 16 f., and Section IV, Ephesians ...... 0.38 2 14 GOTHIC BIBLE I NVESTIGATION GOTHIC BIBLE I NVESTIGATION 15
Nehemiah ...... 2 0 2 (2); 10.23; 14.10; 14.11 (2) 14.29 (2); 14.33; 14.35; 15.12; 15.13; 15.14; 15.24; 15.27; 15.30; 16.1 (2); 16.15; 16.21; 16.24; Grand Total ...... 1790 142 1939 17.7; 17.8; 18.9; 18.14 (2); 18.24; 18.35; 19.8; 19.10; 19.27; The above tabulation shows that about 8 per cent of all 19.37; 19.48; 20.2; 20.17; 20.18; 20.27; 20.38. Mark 1.6; 1.26; the Gothic present participles in the Gospels and Epistles have 1.30; 1.32; 1.38; 1.42; 2.17; 2.23; 4.17; 5.11; 5.14; 5.15; 5.16; no participial equivalents in the Greek text, while 92 per cent 5.26; 5.30; 5.41; 6.2; 6.21; 6.26; 6.56; 7.10; 7.19; 7.30; h ave such equivalents. 8.10; 9.1; 9.33; 10.30; 10.32 ; 10.42; 10.46; 12.10; 13.17; 13.26; 13.29; 14.72; 15.21; 15.33; 15.41; 15.42. SUMMARY1 Matthew 22 = 14% of total of Greek pa rticiples in Matthew John 100 = 42% of total of Greek participles in John Luke 85 = 14% of total of Greelc participles in Luke Mark 39 = 8% of total of Greek participles in Mark
Total 246 = 17% of total of Greek pa rticiples in the Gospels
SECTION II How are t he above 246 Greek participles rendered in Gothic? I have found that some 100 are rendered by relative GREEK PARTICIPLES IN THE GOSPELS WITH ACTIVE OR MIDDLE clauses; as, for instance, Matthew 5.28: 6 ~/,E:rcwv, by saei MEANING, BUT WHICH HAVE No PRESEN'l' PARTICIPLE saihwith, etc.; 50 odd by adjectives, as Matthew 5.22: EQUIVALENTS IN THE GOTHIC TEXT ogy~~6µEvo c; , by rnodags; some 60 by finite verbs other than The verses where t hese Greek participles occur are the in r elative clauses, as Matthew 27.48 : ()ga ~t wv, 2 by thragida. following: Matthew 5.22; 5.28; 6.4; 6.18; 7.21; 7.26 (2); 8.14; A few also are rendered by nouns, as John 11.44 : •dhrrxwc; ," 9.10; 9.12; 9.18; 9.32; 10. 37 ; 10.39 (2); 11.8; 11.15; 25.44 by dau,tha; or infinitives, as John 6.62: &va~a[vovi:a, by (2); 27.48 (2); 27.49. John 5.45 ; 6.2; 6.5 (2); 6.17; 6.22; u,ssteigan; or by adverbial clauses, as Matthew 9.18: wli•a 6.23; 6.25; 6.33 (2); 6.40 (2); 6.44; 6.45; 6.46; 6.50; G.51; mitou /..a/..olivrnc;, by rniththanei is roclida; and one by an adverb, 6.54 (2); 6.62; 6.63; 6.64; 7.9; 7.14; 7.15; 7.18 (2); 7.26; viz., Mark 1.38 : &'.ywµ.ev Eli; i:ai; EXopivac; xw~Lon:6/1E 1 c;, by gaggam, 7.28; 7.38; 7.48; 7.49; 7.50; 8.12 (2); 8.16; 8.18 ; 8.26; 8.34; du thaim bisunjane hairnorn. 8.50 (2) ; 8.54; 9.8; 9.11; 9.25; 9.35; 9.37; 10.1 (2); 10.12; Why did the translator, or translators, or the reviser 11.1; 11.2 (2); 11.25 ; 11.26 (2); 11.33; 11.37 ; 11.38; 11.39; deviate, in those 246 cases, cont ained in the four Gospels, 11.44; 12.1; 12.3; 12.4; 12.12; 12.14; 12.17; 12.25 (2); 12.29; from the original? If we are looking for idiomatic Gothic, 12.35; 12.36; 12.44; 12.45; 12.48 (2); 12.49; 13.18; 13.20; we are likely, I believe, to find it in renderings which are 13.25; 13.30; 14.9; 14.10; 14.12; 14.21 (3); 15.5; 15.23; 16.2; 16.13; 18.3; 18.4; 18.14; 18.22; 18.26; 18.37; 19.2; 19.12. Luke i I have not listed the Greek participles which, in the Epistles, are without Gothic participial equivalents because above list was deemed 1.2; 1.17; 1.18; 1.53; 1.67; 2.12; 2.15; 2.36; 3.1 (3); 3.7; 3.23 sufficient for the purpose of investigating the question why not all Greek (2); 4.40 (2); 4.42; 5.3; 5.7; 5.10; 5.14; 5.17; 5.31 (2); 6.21; participles with active and middle meaning are represented in the Gothic text by the present part iciple. 6.35; 6.48; 7.3; 7.10 (2); 7.12; 7.39; 7.45; 8.3 ; 8.4 {2); 8.8; 2 The Greek grave and acute accents, a s they occur in the original, 8.23; 8.32; 8.43; 9.2; 9.7; 9.11; 9.17; 9.59; 9.60; 10.13; 10.16 are never changed in this paper, no m atter whether they occur before a pa use, or not. ------,-----
16 GOTHIC BIBLE INVESTIGATION GOTHIC BIBLE INVESTI GATION 17
different from the Greek text rather than in those which are These are to be found in the following verses: Matthew G.30; the same as in the original, especially in cases like these, 1 7.15; 8.2; 8.26; 9.8; 9.23; 10.25 ; 11.11; 11.12 (2); 11.15; where the translator or reviser chose these forms in spite of 27.53; 27.63. John 7.9; 13.36; 16.20; 18.5; 18.37. Luke 1.54; the ever-present influence of the original. Hence, the con 1.71; 1.78; 3.17 (2) 6.16; 6.27; 6.36; 7.20; 7.28; 7.33; 7.44; clusion seems justified that the translator or reviser, in choos 9.41 ; 14.2!2; 14.35; 18.29. Mark 1.40; 2.12; 2.23; 4.9; 4.23; ing the above forms, was led to do so by his native language 6.24; 6.25; 7.16; 8.38; 9.17; 9.19; 9.25; 9.45; 15.1. Romans feeling. And indeed, the above renderings, substituting for 7.3 (2); 9.22; 10.19; 11.28; 13.4. I Corinthians 5.10; 5.11; the Greek participles relative clauses, nouns, adjectives, finite 7.6; 7.12; 7.13; 7.14 (2); 7.15; 10.18; 10.27; 10.29; 10.32; verbs, infinitives, adverbial clauses (cf. p. 19, note) or ad 11.1; 11.2; 14.22 (2); 14.23; 14.24 ; 16.7; 16.10. II Corinthians verbs, are testifying to the general Germanic way of express 3 2.9; 2.11; 4.4 ; 4.7; 5.20; 6.~; 6.8 ; 6.14; 6.15 (2); 6.18 ; ing those ideas which, in the Greek language, are expressed 8.8; 8.17; 8.24; 10.13 ; 11.2; 13.11. Ephesians 1.16; 5.1; 6.12. so frequently by participial constructions. That is still t~e Galatians 2.4; 2.18. Philippians 1.14; 2.8; 3.17. Colossians common practice in the Germanic languages; and even m 3.15; 3.22 (2); 4.2. I Thessalonians 2.13; 2.14; 4.6; 5.17. modern English, which is so much given to the use of the II Thessalonians 3.8. I Timothy 1.9 (3); 1.10; 1.13 (2); 2.2; present participle, these renderings are o~ten felt to be. more 4 2.5 ; 2.7; 2.9; 3.2; 3.4; 4.3; 4.10; 4.12; 5.8; 5.13; 6.2 (2). correct than a participial form. Thus, if anywhere m the II Timothy 1.11; 1.13; 2.24; 3.2 (2); 3.3 (2); 3.4 (2). Titus Gothic Bible, it seems that here we have to do with idiomatic 1.2; 1.6; 1.10; 1.15; 1.16. Phile. 22. Gothic. Gothic renderings which duplicate Greek renderings The present participles contained in above verses comprise may or may not be idiomatic Gothic, but those ~h~ch a~e about 55 for which nouns are used in the Greek text, as, for different seem more likely than not to represent id10matlc instance, thriitsfill habands, in Matt. 8.2, which translates the Gothic speech, especially if they do not occur sporadic~lly, Greek /,mgo~; about 50 for which adjectives are used, as but in a systematic way, as is the case with the renderi?gs wilwandans, in Matt. 7.15, which stands for CJ.grr.a.yc,~ ; some 20 of the foregoing Greek participles. Also Streitberg recogmzes which stand for Greek finite verbs, as innatgaggandans, in this important principle (cf. Got. Elementarbuch, p. 165). Matt. 27.53, which translates the Greek dofj;\tlov; a few which stand for Greek infinitives, as hausjandona, in Matt. 11.15, which translates the Greek axouav; and a couple which trans late Greek adverbs, as iinagandans, in Philippians 1.14, for &cpo~w~. Why do these participles appear in the Gothic text, and is their appearance in places where the Greek text has no par- SECTION III 1 Gardawa.ldamls is probably a noun not derived from a verb GOTHIC PRESENT PARTICIPLES WITHOUT GREEK PARTICIPIAL gardawaldan (cf. L. 14.21, and Gering, Ober den synt. Gebr. der Pctrt. im Got., p. 22 f.) . EQUIVALENTS ~ See above not e, on M. 10.25. :: Allwaldands, probably a noun not derived from a verb allwal ticiples, not rather a sign that the Gothic language can use For fairrinnandin, in II Cor. 10.13, and fetjandeins, in I Tim. the present participle independently of the Greek? I am not 2.9, the Vulgate has the gerund pertingendi and the present prepared to subscribe to this statement as it stands. Those participle ornantes, respectively. For skewjandans in Mk. participles in this list which stand for nouns, adjectives, and 2.23, the Vulgate has the infinitive vrogredi, it is true, but the adverbs are very likely idiomatic Gothic, because the present Cod. Bezae has the gerund [iter] f aciendo, so that, if the participle can be used with the same functions in all Germanic Gothic translator was here under Latin influence, he had languages, as for instance in the German expressions ein perhaps before him the latter version. In Luke 1.54 the reissender Strom, der Sterbende, es ist glUhend heiss.1 This Gothic gamunands possibly owes its origin to the Vulgate is done in cases where no good simple noun, adjective, or ad deponent past participle r ecordatus (with active meaning) .1 verb exists. Those Gothic present participles of the above Mikiljandans, in Mk. 2.12, is pleonastically used alongside of list which represent Greek infinitives, appear as though the hauhidedun, possibly because the latter word, as a new Bible Latin versions had been influencing the translator. For, of term, seemed to the translator to leave the reader in doubt the ten participles in this category, five are to be found in as to its meaning. However, by adding mikiljandans as a the Vulgate as gerunds (which is the future participle passive synonym he did not make things much clearer, as the latter used as a noun with active meaning), viz., hausjandona, in term appears to be just as new as the former, it being in effect Mt. 11.15; Luke 14.35 ; Mk. 4.9; 4.23; 7.16, for which the ( a literal rendering of the Latin magnificare. It thus seems Vulgate has audiendi, and the Codex Bezae~ acl audiendum. that the translator was encountering here the difficulty of finding an adequate Gothic rendering for the Greek word i Occasionally there is in German also a present participle used ... with adv. clause or relative meaning, as in I hren B rief beantwortend, I oo~ci~ELV , which means primarily to believe, have an opinion, teile ich I hnen mit, or Dieses Haus, der Fami lie Bismcirck gehorend, ist and in the second place to esteem, or to praise. biltig verkcmft warden. This use, however, is not carried to a ny g reat length, and in most cases a rendering without participle is preferred, as: /?idem ?ch Ihren Brief beantworte, or: Das Hems, ivelches d er Familie Bisrnctrclc gellort, etc. 2 This Codex is of the sixth century. It was perhaps written in southern Gaul and shares many curious readings with the Cod. Argen t eus. "Those critics who do not claim southern Gaul as the home of the Cod. B ezae, point to northern Italy as its place of origin. Prof. Sanday, for instance, tentatively suggested Ravenna. One is tempted to wonder, t herefore, whether the preservation, in just this corner of Eurnpe, of the most important witnesses of the prehieronymian Gospels is not due to the use, by the Arian Goths and Lombards, of t he ancient text with which they became fa miliar in the fourth to sixt h centuries." (Cf. Friedrichsen, p. 188.) The Cod. Bezae appears to be written in a better Latin than the Vulgate, which seems to have been originally some sort of interlinear of the Greek original and which is full of un-Latin g rammatical and 1 This is one of the many cases in which a Gothic present participle syntactical constructions. (Cf. Plater-White, A Grammar of the V1il is used to express the idea of an adverbial clause. In Greek the parti gcite, passim, and J erome's letter to Pammachus, p. 38 of this paper: ciples are very frequently used that way, the sam e as in modern En"" absq1te scripturis smictis, 1tbi et verborwm ordo mysterimn est. ) :"!'he lish. While this use of the present participlt is not entirely unkno\,;n Vulgate, as it now exists, cannot be said to be Jernme's r evised text of lo the rest of the Germanic languages (cf. note 1 on p. 18), yet it is the Old Latin as he published it. For much of his revising was later comparatively rare. Hence its use in Gothic, particularly in the many lost again, owing to the opposition his work encountered from many cases where there is used a lso in the Greek a participle, must be under sides, in spite of t he official sanction of the Holy Father himself. (Cf. the suspicion of being, frequently at least, an imitation of the ori""inal0 Plater-White, p. 5-6.) (cf. also p. 15. f.). GOTHIC BIBLE INVESTIGATION 20 GOTHIC BIBLE INVESTIGATION 21 SECTION IV the sense is: "I wrote you, adding." However, the form GoTHIC PRESENT PARTICIPLES FOR WHICH THERE ARE No might also be a spelling mistake for bidjands, in which case WORDS IN THE GREEK TEXT the sense would be: "I wrote you, requesting." In this case Some twelve Gothic present participles are not represented the participle would have a final meaning. in the Greek text by any words at all. Swarands, in Mt. 26.72 Thus we see thai; it is possible to give a plausible reason is redundant for mith aUha, and at the same time attendant for each of above Gothic present participles which fail to have circumstance to laugnida. It ow.es perhaps its origin to a participial equivalents in the Greek text. On the other hand, reminiscence, on the part of the translator, of those many it would be risky to cite the same as proof to the effect that places in which, in imitation of the Greek original, verbs such the present participle is idiomatic in Gothic for other purposes as githands and andhafjands are used redundantly, as in than expressing grammatical relationships with noun, adjec Mt. 8.2; 8.8; 8.27; Luke 1.60, etc. The Cod. Bezae has here tive, and simple adverbial (rarely clause) functions. For the in effect dicens, which form may also have been in the mind use of present participles in the place of adverbial clauses of the Gothic translator, or reviser. Wisandin, in Luke 2.2 see p. 18, note 1. ( wisandin kindina Swriais), was originally a marginal alter native rendering, which had been added later by another person (cf. Friedrichsen, p. 221). It is perhaps also reminis cent of places like Mt. 6.30; Luke 7.25; 9.48, etc. Habands, in Luke 3.17, is possibly reminiscent of many other similar ... SECTION V I places, as Mt. 7.29; 8.9; 8.16; 9.12; 9.36; etc. Wisandam, in FREQUENCY IN THE USE OF THE GOTHIC PRESENT PARTICIPLE Luke 6.4, and II Cor. 11.5; as well as wisando, in Luke 15.13, INTERPRETED wisands, in Gal. 2.15, and wisandein, in I Tim. 1.4, are possibly When looking at the Summary on p. 15, we notice that owing to the same reason as is given for Luke 2.2, end. while the percentage of the Greek participles which are Sildal eikjandans, in Mk. 1.27, is perhaps reminiscent of Mt. not translated into Gothic is the same for Matthew (14 9.8. Qithands, in Mk. 10.17, is probably reminiscent of the per cent) and Luke (14 per cent), there is a noteworthy many other places where this participle occurs redundantly. discrepancy between those two and Mark with 8 per cent, Tiuhandwns, in II Cor. 10.5, is really an explanatory synonym and a much greater yet between these three and John with for frahinthandans in the same verse. The translator may 42 per cent. Turning now to Gothic, we can say that in a have felt that it was necessary to explain the former (cf. general way, whenever there are fewer participles used in m·ikiljandans on p. 19 of this paper; but cf. also II Tim. 3.6, Greek as compared with the number of verses, we find that where frahunthana tiuhand qineina is rendering the Latin Gothic also uses fewer. This statement is correct in an abso captivas ducunt, against the Greek alnux/,urd~ovtE~ ). Ufkun lute sense, although the relative difference varies somewhat, nands, in Phil. 2.28, is struck out. Bijands, in Phile. 22, is used as we can see from the following table: only in that place. Bernhardt (Die got. Bibel, 1884) and Gi·eek Gothic Uppstrom (cf. Streitb., Die got. Bibel, glossar) think that it is Matthew 1 participle in 1.33 verses 1 in 1.45 verses the present participle of bijan, "to add." If that is so, bijands John 1 participle in 2.32 verses 1 in 3.90 verses is attendant circumstance to gamelida thus, in v.erse 21, and Luke 1 participle in 1.23 verses 1 in 1.38 verses Mark 1 participle in 1.28 verses 1 in 1.35 verses 22 GOTHIC BIBLE INVESTIGATION GOTHIC BIBLE INVESTIGATION 23 From above table we glean the facts that, first, the Greek connection; cf. his Elernentarbuch, p. 20), or it may connote text has in all Gospels more participles which represent "translation," a meaning derived from the former, since a Gothic present participles than there are present participles translation is, of course, an "interpretation" of the text trans in the Gothic text; second, that a diminishing of participles lated. (Cf. also Jerome's letter to Sunnja and Frithila, p. 38.) in the Greek text is associated with a proportionate dimin Philostorgios, Sokrates, and Sozomenos say that Wulfila ishing of present participles in the Gothic text; third, that translated the Bible. But since they wrote about the middle the difference between Greek and Gothic is largest in John of the fifth century, their testimony is not that of contempor and smallest in Mark. aries. The testimony of later writers is still more unreliable. The conclusion to be drawn from above tabulation is that As to Wulfila's share in the making of the Gothic Bible, the Gothic translator is following, in his choice of present several hypotheses are possible: First, Wulfila may have participles, the lead of his Greek original. This is patent as translated the Bible without outside help. This, however, is regards Matthew, Luke, and Mark on the one hand and John doubtful, owing to the unequal treatment the present parti on the other. But while the difference, in the number of ciple receives in John (cf. p. 15, Summary, and p. 12, Table participles used, is not large in the three former Gospels, it III), as well as in some of the Epistles (cf. p. 12, Table III) . is considerable in John. This leads us to inquire into the This Gospel according to John, and some of the Epistles were, reason for this phenomenon. To my mind the best explanation it would seem, translated by some one, or several people, who appears to be that not the same person who, let me say, trans did not favor the present participle as much as the translator, lated Matthew, Luke, and Mark, also translated John. It is or translators, of the other three Gospels. This differing atti by no means certain that Wulfila himself translated the Bible, tude with regard to the use of the present participle might either in whole or in part, for in the first place the Gothic possibly be explained on the ground of different moods, or Bible fragments have come down to us nameless. The Arian attitudes, at different times toward the present participle by bishop Auxentius, our foremost source concerning Wulfila, one and the same translator. However, it seems more logical because he was a contemporary of his and his pupil, where and natural to assume, as an explanation, the idea of a num he speaks of his teacher's literary activities, says nothing ber of persons having been engaged in the work. definite on the matter. Commending Wulfila as a man who Second hypothesis: Wulfila was only one of several who was able to preach and write in Gothic, Greek, and Latin, he contributed their individual shares to a collective undertaking says: "Plures tractatus et multas interpretationes volentibus which afterwards became known by the name of Wulfila, as ad utilitatem et ad aedificationem, sibi ad aeternam memoriam one of the most prominent of the group of translators. et mercedem post se dereliquid." (Cf. Streitberg, Got. JJJle Third hypothesis: Wulfila himself did not do any trans rnentarbuch) p. 20.) One might think that he would not have lating, but was the originator of the idea, entrusting the whole failed t o mention, on the above occasion, by title such an task to a commission of translators, and later authorized ·~ heir outstanding achievement as the translation of the Bible, if translation for use in the churches under his jurisdiction, with he had credited him for it. The expression plures tractatus the result that it became known to posterity as "Wulfila's et multas interpretationes referred to is not clear enough. For Bible." the term interpretatio may mean either "commentary" (the commoner meaning, to which also Streitberg adheres in this ·------ GOTHIO BIBLE INVESTIGATION 25 24 GOTHIC BIBLE INVESTIGATION SECTION VI qimands than in sis for Elc; foui-ov l)i:; EA.{} 26 GOTI-l/C BIBLE INVESTIGATION GOTHIC BIBLE INVESTIGATION 27 term, made, it seems, an essentially verbatim rendering in 1790 Gothic present participles a bar.e thirty-one are excep which they left, as a general rule, all important words, such tions to the rule. as nouns, adjectives, verbs, participles-in fact, all words Speaking of the Gothic word order in a general way, excepting those few that seemed to them to be more or less J Friedrichsen, in his book, The Gothic Version of the Gospels, void of sense-in the positions they had in the original. In l says on page 15: this fashion they were careful, for instance, to put in their The fundamental principle underlying the translation is the sys translation the adjective before its noun when it was there in ·~ tematic correspondence of the Gothic text w ith the Greek, word for the Greek, too, and after it when the Greek text had it like word, and in precisely the same order.... No other feature of the wise in this position. They followed the same rule with refer Gothic Version is more characteristic of the translator's style than this. ence to the possessive adjectives, the pronouns relative to the Every word of the Greek text, excepting the definite article, is normally represented in the Gothic, even particles like ~lE, 1'\E, uv, and others verbs on which they depend, etc. (Compare Matthew 5.16 : which, being peculiar to Greek, must almost necessarily, when repro liuhath izwar with izwara goda waustwa, 5.29 : aitgo thein duced in any other language, be unidiomatic, meaningless, or un thata taihswo, with 5.30: taihswo theina handus.) Their intelligible. translation appears thus to be an e verbo rendering of every And on page 17: thing that might be susceptible to theological controversies. But they did not take great pains to translate, for instance, Certainly the text of the Gothic Bible, which is, according to Fr. the Greek definite article except when it had demonstrative Kauffmann and Streitberg, ohne clie Q1teZlen miverstiindlich, makes intolerable reading to the Germanist, who, on first acquaintance, can or relative, or otherwise emphatic meaning. Likewise they only compare it with the clumsiest interlinears of the West Germanic were not concerned about the position of other words when dialects. . . . It would indeed be strange if it were possible to render they served more or less as gap-fillers, such as the above good, hellenistic Greek almost word for word into the colloquial speech mentioned ith, .etc.1 Hence they probably let themselves be of one of the Germanic dialects. The laws of probability alone are guided, for the positions of these words, by their native against it. language feeling. That, then, seems to me to be the reason In order to see how much truth there was in above ntate why their positions differ from those of the corresponding ments, I copied the Greek text of Matthew, Chapter 5, and Greek words. (Cf. also p. 7 f.) Luke, Chapter 10, writing under it the corresponding Gothic But some discrepancies in word order are doubtless also text. The result was a neat interlinear, all the main features to be charged to unintentional slips of the very translator, of which, both as regards word order and otherwise, agreed for it is easy to understand that above mentioned set purpose well with the Greek text. The discrepancies occurring were of keeping, in the Gothic translation, every important word practically all of a minor order, referring to features similar to in the position it had in the original, was by no means an easy those mentioned in the first paragraph of the above quotation, task. Perhaps lots of unintentional deviations occurr.ed, as or to declension cases which are different from the Greek, as well as intentional ones that were made by later hands. This, stated in Section VIL The differences occurring as to word added to the rest, makes it appear almost a marvel that of order, etc., may be explained on the basis of the facts set forth in paragraph 2 of page 7, and p. 25. It is very probable that 1 They also added at times a word or so in order to impart greater a similar interlinear could be made of the whole Gothic text. precision, and without changing the sense. Cf., for instance, _mikiljm_i clans, on p. 15, or the reflexive sik when no reflexive pronoun 1s used m the Greek. GOTHIC BIBLE INVESTIGATION 28 GOTHIC BIBLE INVESTIGATION 29 SECTION VII 11. Greek adverb plus participle for Gothic pro ADDITIONAL SYNTACTICAL FEATURES OF THE GOTIIIC gressive form, as in Luke 7.2. PRESENT PARTICIPLE 12. Greek simple participle (rel.) for Gothic pro Apart from the word order of the Gothic present parti gressive form (once), Luke 18.7. ciple, as well as the rest of the words of any importance, 13. Greek participle plus noun ( ovra BJ1acHp11µov) which is practically identical with that of the Greek original, for Gothic progressive form (once), I Tim. as was shown above, there are some more differences, mostly 1.13. However, ~J.cicrcpqµov might also be con as the result of the use of prepositions governing different sidered present participle of B/,dcrcp11~tew, cases in the two languages, which testify to the fact that those while wajamerjands may also be a parti who had a share in translating the Gothic Bible, while apply cipial noun. ing to their translation probably the Greek syntax, yet 14. Greek omission of preposition before a parti largely followed the requirements of the Gothic tongue as to ciple for Gothic preposition, as in Mt. 8.10. the government of prepositions and other similar features. None of the above cases occurs oftener than a few times, The typical cases, as far as the present participle is concerned, except Greek genitive for Gothic dative, which is met with are the following: somewhat more frequently. These renderings, at least most 1. Greek nominative for Gothic accusative, as in of them, are, as far as accidence is concerned, doubtless John 6.35. idiomatic Gothic. They are cases similar to those mentioned 2. Greek genitive for Gothic dative, as in Mt. on p. 25 f., where the translator was convinced that a cor 27.19. respondence with the Greek was unnecessary or even out of 3. Greek g.enitive of origin for Gothic apposi place. For it does not matter, for instance, which case a tion, as in Eph. 1.11 (once) . preposition governs, nor are two languages alike in the matter 4. Greek genitive for Gothic accusative, as in of accidence, nor has Gothic more than one participle active Mt. 10.28. for the many which Greek has. 5. Greek dative for Gothic genitive, as in Luke 15.7. 6. Greek dative for Gothic accusative, as in I Cor. 9.3. 7. Greek accusative for Gothic nominative, as in Luke 19.15. SECTION VIII 8. Greek accusative for Gothic dative, as in Mt. PROGRESSIVE FORMS WITH Wisan 5.42. In the following list, verses with no asterisk are progressive in both 9. Greek singular for Gothic plural, as in Rom. Gothic and the Greek, with copula expressed...... 79 10.4. Verses with one asterisk are progressive in the Gothic, but not in 10. Greek plural for Gothic singular, as in Mk. the Greek text, with copula expressed in the Gothic...... 15 7.15. In verses with two asterisks the copula is expressed neither in the Gothic, nor in the Greek text, but is to be supplied from the context ...... 21 GOTHIC BIBLE INVESTIGATION 30 GOTHIC BIBLE INVESTIGATION 31 In verses with three asterisks the copula is wanting in Gothic, The grand total of progressive forms with wisan in the whereas in the Greek the form is not progressive...... 6 Gospels and Epistles, is thus 124. Of these, twenty-seven In verses with four asterisks the copula is expressed in the Gothic, ~ave no copula at all and have been put down only as con but wanting in the Greek text...... 3 Jectural cases. Subtracting these twenty-seven conjectural Total ...... 124 form~ from th~ total of 124, there remain ninety-seven pro gressive forms m the Gospels and Epistles. Of these, twenty It is to be borne in mind that the copula does not always ?ne are not progressive in the Greek text. On that account precede or follow the participle immediately, but that it is it behooves us to look for the reason of this fact, in order to used at times first with some other participle, or some other see whether the progressive form is native to Gothic or word, and then omitted in the second and following instances, whether it owes its origin, in the Gothic Bible, to imit~tion as in I Cor. 15.31, where sijum may be understood from of the Greek. verse 30. In ~om . 9.22 was was added later, usbeidands (was) thus LIST OF PROGRESSIVE FORMS WITH Wisan r~ndermg the Greek r)vqxEv. This Gothic participial construc Matthew 5.25; 7.29; 27.61...... 3 tion may owe its origin to the possible difficulty to render John 10.40; 13.23; 18.18 (2); 18.25 (2)...... 6 1jvEyxi;v by a finite form. The same may also hold for the Lulte 1.10; 1.20 (2); 1.21; 1.22; 2.25 (may also be attend. circ.) ; 2.33; 2.51; 4.20; 4.31; 4.44; 5.1; 5.16 (2); 5.17 (2); 5.29; 6.12; other three Gothic progressive forms, for which a finite verb 6.43 (2); 8.40; 9.18; 9.53; 15.1; 16.19; 18.7* ':"~*; 18.9 (copula is used in the Greek, viz., gamunandans sijidh in I Cor. 11.2 · omitted before frakunnanclans because it is understood from (ni~ sijum unwitandans, in II Cor. 2.11, a~d ( gawairthiJ the preceding w eseina, although this is in the subjunctive, while, t au1andans sijaith, in II Cor. 13.11. It is also possible that as copula to frakmmandans, it should be westm); 19.17; 19.47 . . 28 analogy of the rest has brought one or the other of these into Mark 1.4 (2); 1.22; 1.39 (2); 2.6 (2); 2.18; 4.38; 5.5 (may be at tendant circumstance) (2); 5.40; 7.15 (2); 9.4; 10.22; 10.32; line. 14.49; 14.54 ( 2) ; 15.43...... 21 In the remainder of the cases the Greek text has for the Rom. 7.3*; 9.22*; 12.9**; 12.10 ~"'' ; 12.11'"' (2) ; 12.12 *~' (3); 12.13** Gothic progressive form, a form which always co~sists of (2); 12.16** (3) ; 12.17** (2) ; 12.18**; 12.19u ...... 19 t~vo words, viz., some form of i;lvm, or y Ly vo ~tm , plus an adjec I Cor. 10.18*; 10.32*; 11.2*; 15.19; 15.31 *~'** (participle may also tive, or substantive adjective, as in Rom. 7.3: i;lvm . . . express attendant circumstance in Gothic and Greek); 16.10* ... 6 ~ w1xaA.t 32 GOTHIC BIBLE INVESTIGATION GOTHIC BIBLE I NVESTIGATION 33 may hence have made its influence felt. If all the Greek brian text of the Gospels, 31 times in the Corpus and Hatton MSS, and forms concerned here were expressed by finite verbs, the same 85 times in Slteat's Stndent's Chaucer). But since most of this liter ature consists of translations from Church Latin, it is difficult to say as the four above-mentioned exceptions, instead of by an ad how many of these forms were felt, at the time in question, to be jective or noun with copula, and the Gothic text then had the idiomatic. The poetry selections of Bright's Reader do not contain a ny progressive forms it now has, there would be more ground progressive forms, which is suggestive in view of the fact that poetry to believe that they were idiomatic and native to Gothic. can be relied upon to be linguistically as a rule less under the influence The position in the sentence of copula and participle of oi foi·eign models than are prose t ranslations. With Chaucer the p ro gressive form, even in case it was originally un-English, had doubtless above progressive forms is identical with that of the cor acquired already the status of being felt as idiomatic. The relative responding Greek forms, except in six cases, viz., John 18.18; paucity of its occunence has to be noted, however (85 times in 717 18.25; Mk. 1.22; 15.43; II Cor. 1.9; 2.9. The agreement with closely printed pages). the word order of the Greek text is very obvious. Even grant English may have gotten its progressive form from the Church ing that the Gothic word order was so free that any word of Latin which, in turn, quite likely popularized it under the influence of the Greek Bible. In ordinary standard Latin it is hardly ever used. any given sentence could take any place in it, the correspond Caesar, as far as I r emember, has not a single instance of its use. In ence with the Greek, in the cases before us, would not be so other rare cases where it occurs, its nature is doubtful because the close as it is, unless the author had made it a point to keep participle may be considered either a noun or an adjective, as in the straight to the Greek word order. For if he had not made up expression nt sis sciens; or when Cicero says (Or. II, 89, 364): Nemo his mind beforehand to that effect, some participles and umqi,am tam sni despiciens fidt quin speraret meli1is se posse dicere copulas would have taken one place, and others another, just (cf. Gildersleeve's Latin Gr., 247, rem. 2). at random, with the result that there would be a considerable disagreement with the original, just as a person copying a book in his native language would not always keep strictly to the word order of the text before him unless he knew that it was essential to copy absolutely verbatim. Hence, the close coincidence in word order between the Gothic and the Greek text hints at the purpose. The couple of exceptions occurring SECTION IX may not even have been the original plan of the translator; PROGRESSIVE FORMS WITH Wairthan they may be slips, thus thwarting his own set purpose. Or In the Greek text a considerable number of verbal con they may be the result of the repeated copying and revising structions occur in which a participle is connected with some of the original translation. foi:m of ytyvo~t m, as in Luke 3.22; 6.16; 6.36; 9.29; 9.35; Mk. In the AS. Beowulf- t o cast, for comparison's sake, a side giance 9.3 ; 9.7; I Cor. 11.1. In all of these cases just mentioned the at the history of the English progressive form-I have found three Gothic text has a form of wairthan, connected with a present progressive forms, viz., ehtende waes (v. 159). waes mtlifige11~le (v. participle. Whether these Gothic forms are t o be considered 468), and secggende waes (v. 3028). These may be genuine idiomatic as progressive, so-called, will depend upon whether or not the forms, or they may not be. At any rate, the small number shows that form of wairthan is to be taken as a main or an auxiliary at that period the language feeling for the progressive form was very little developed. In later AS. it occurs somewhat more frequently ( 61 verb. If we consider it a main verb, its rendering in English times in 2536 lines of Bright's AS. Reader, 43 times in the Old Northum- will be a form of to become, or some other verb with a similar 34 GOTHIC BIBLE I NVESTIGATION GOTHIC BIBLE INVESTIGATION 35 meaning. Thus the phrase stibna ttS himina warth qithandei very likely made it difficult for the translator to find in his in Luke 3.22, means in English something like "a voice orig language a simple (or compound) verb with identical mean inated from heaven, saying." In cases of this kind, the par ing, for which reason he also in this isolated case resorted ticiple may be said to have either relative force ("a voice to the progressive form as a convenient circumlocution. Com which said"), or it may be an adverbial modifier (= the voice pare, in this connection, ElJQllVEui::tE in II. Cor. 13.11, which was produced as speaking). But if the form of wairthan used lilrnwise may have been difficult to render, thus causing the be understood as an auxiliary to the participle, the latter ac translator to use an apparently so clumsy rendering as quires the function of a predicate complement, the whole gawairthi taitjandans sijaith. combination becoming a so-called progressive form. The word order of the above progressive forms with There are, in the Greek text, also cases in which a form wairthan is completely identical with that of the Greek text, of y(yvo~uxt is used with a regular adjective, as in I Cor. 15.58; i. e., when the copula stands before the participle, or adjective Eph. 4.32; 5.1; 5.17; Phil. 2.8; 3.17; Col. 3.15; I Thess. 2.14. (resp. substantive noun) in the Greek, it is also there in the In these cases there is, of course, no doubt as to the auxiliary Gothic, and vice versa. Compare, to this effect, Eph. 5.1 with character of the corresponding forms of y(yvo ~Lm, from which I Thess. 2.14. we are, I believe, entitled to conclude likewise as to the The idiomatic Gothic character of the progressive form auxiliary character of those being connected with a participle, with wairthan has not been proved by the foregoing. But it as mentioned in the preceding paragraph. Also the cases of is possible (and that applies also-to the progressive form with this paragraph are rendered in the Gothic by the progressive wisan) that imitation here led, as it so often does in language form with wairthan. development (cf. the general influence of Latin upon English Of the following cases the Greek has a finite verb for and German) to new forms which, although unidiomatic at saurgandans wairthith, in John 16.20. In Luke 1.11, the the beginning, later become idiomatic by dint of repeated Greek has 36 GOTHIC BIBLE INVESTIGATION GOTHIC BIBLE INVESTIGATION 37 SECTION X been separated at that time from the original parent-tongue IDIOMATIC PHRASES (whatever that may have been) already for thousands, if not All. langua~es have their own sets of idomatic phrases, or for millions of years, each going its own way of development, rendermgs which, in order to make good sense, cannot be so that there was no chance of any two of them ever coming translated literally from one language into another, but must together again. ?e rendered, according to their meaning, by the phrases which, Comparing now the Gothic Bible text with the Greek orig m other languages, correspond to the ideas expressed by inal, we find that, except for an occasional circumlocution of them. More or less closely related languages, as English and a Greek form (cf. p. 34 f.) , the Gothic Bible appears to have German, have many idiomatic phrases, called idioms, in com no idiomatic phrases of its own, neither in connection with mon, as compared with languages more distant from each present participles, nor otherwise. This fact should not be other. However, there are, even in German and English, taken as proof, it seems to me, that both languages had many phrases which are alien to the other of the two as for reached, at that time, the same development, for that seems instance, the English phrases "to make up one's mi~d,',' "to impossible, as I tried to show at the beginning of this section. take advantage of," "with a set purpose," "to know something On the other hand, the absence of characteristic Gothic idioms ~o an ~xtent," "to change hands," "to take exception to," is very damaging to the hypothesis in question, which is really what is the matter?"; or the German phrases was ist los? advanced by some. In fact it destroys it, at least as far as wie geht· es?, einen Entschluss /assen, etc. Even the most the question of idioms is concerned. Thus, after deducting closely related languages, such as Hollandish and Flemish whatever changes from the original version may have been are distinguished from each other by their individual phrase~ made, in virtue of the many copyings and intentional addi ology, although their grammar is practically the same. tions and changes, we find before us a text that, as a whole, Idioms are largely figurative and it seems logical to sup leaves the impression that it must have been originally a pos~ that _they have their origin in the racial, topographic, more or less true word-for-word rendering (cf. p. 27). We s?cial.' busi~ess and other conditions by which one people dis need not wonder at this, for the translation was made at a tmgmshes itself from another. In fact, it seems difficult to time when individual words were causing schisms in the find another adequate explanation of this phenomenon. And Church. It was the time when the sect of Wulfila himself sin?e .t~e me~tioned conditions are different for all peoples, had parted company with Rome as the result of a fight over their 1d10matic phraseology also develops along different lines. the terms <'>~woucno ; and <'i1.ww; . If so much depended on a As long as the Anglo-Saxons and Germans were only different single word, we need not be astonished that the translator of tribes of one and the same people, there was probably little the Gothic Bible was very cautious lest he adulterate the text difference in the idiomatic phrases used by both. But as soon by taking liberties with its words. That the Gothic language as they became separated, and began to shape their own became adulterated in the process, appeared to be a matter of destiny under different conditions, their idiomatic phraseology little moment compared with the other issues at stake. We also took on a different aspect. must in this connection try to understand the mental attitude From what has been said, it appears that it is impossible of a fervent theologian. Making a de sensu, instead of an for any two languages of today to have the same phraseology. e verbo translation will mean to many a clergyman tamper It was likewise impossible at the time of the Gothic Bible ing with the Bible, what in turn is to them a question of translation; for the various dialects of human speech had salvation or condemnation. Hence it may appear to them to 38 GOTHIC BIBLE INVESTIGATION GOTHIC BIBLE I NVESTIGATION 39 be a grave question of conscience. J erome, who translated be deemed strange that Sunnja and Frithila, having before the Old Testament de sensi", was accused by many of falsi them the example of a Bible in which each word was most fying the Scriptures. In a letter written to the Gothic clergy scrupulously weighed, were in a quandary about the addition men Sunnja and Frithila (Epist. 106.3), whose names he or omission of an irrelevant pronoun. latinizes as Sunnia and Fretela, he expounds his standpoint in To object, to the above, that if the Gothic Bible did not the following manner: "Et hanc esse regulam boni interpretis, represent idiomatic Gothic, the Goths themselves would not ut !0 1 w~tcna linguae alterius suae linguae exprimat proprietate. have understood it, does not avail, in the first place because . . . Nee ex eo quis latinam linguam angustissimam putet, among the material translated literally there was doubtless quod non possit verbum transferre de verbo cum etiam Graeci a lot which was idiomatic also from the standpoint of Gothic, pleraque nostra circuitu transferant et verba Hebraica non owing to the fact that any two given languages render certain interpr.etationis fide [i.e., in the word-for-word fashion], sed ideas in an identical, or at least more or less the same way; linquae suae proprietatibus [i.e., idiomatically] nitantur secondly, because we understand foreigners as a rule, although exprimere." And in a letter to Pammachus (Ep. 57.2 and 5) : their speech is often very faulty; thirdly, because the Goths "Ut inter inperitos contionetur me falsarium, me verbum non had, owing to their mingling with the Greeks, probably some expressisse de verbo, pro 'honorabili' dixisse 'carissimum.' knowledge of the Greek way of expressing one's self and ... Eg0 enim non solum fateor, sed libera voce profiteor me hence could understand without great difficulty their Hellen in interpretatione Graecorum, absque scripturis sanctis, ubi ized Bible, just as foreigners in this country soon familiarize et verborum ordo mysterium est,1 non verbum e verbo, sed themselves with the English way of thinking and then begin sensum exprimere de sensu.'' And in Comment. in Ep. ad to mix their own language with English .expressions, this Gal., liber III, cap. 5: "Non verborum etymologias, sed being the more true the less educated they are; and lastly Scripturae sensum disserer.e conamur" (cf. Friedrichsen, p. because even in our modern Bibles there are many transliter 201 f.). ated foreign idioms which the larger part of the Faithful do The same letter of J erome to Sunnja and Frithila shows not understand properly but which they are fond of quoting (in par. 2) how thoroughly these Gothic divines were imbued as cryptic oracles of Holy Writ, not to be comprehended by with the word-for-word spirit in matters pertaining to the ordinary mortals, but, nevertheless, to be accepted as arcana Bible. Jerome, referring to the Psalm verse beatus homo, of profound significance. How many English readers of the quem tu erudieris, doniine, which had been submitted by them Bible understand properly, for instance, expressions such as to him because of the addition in the Latin of the pronoun tu, appear in Mt. 5.25: "Agree with thine adversary quickly, answers: "Dicitis in Graeco non esse 'tu.' Et verum est, sed while thou art in the way with him"; or in verse 33: "Per apud Latinos propter euqicoviav positum. Si enim dicamus form unto the Lord thine oaths"; or in Luke 10.6 : "If the 'beatus homo, quern erudieris, domine,' conpositionis elegan son of peace be there, your peace shall rest upon it"? So we tiam non habebit" (cf. Friedrichsen, p. 198) . It should not see that even the King James' Version, although idiomatically ., a great advance over its predecessors, is still replete with foreign idioms.1 Not even Smith and Goodspeed's new Bible 1 This refers to Jerome's revision of the N. T., in which he made only few corrections, in places where it was absolutely necessary in translation does justice to all the phrases of this kind. For order to correct the sense (cf. Plater-White, A Grammar of the Viilgate, p . 6). The rest remained unchanged, acl ofjensionem p op1tlormn vitan 1 The Douay Version is very similar to the King J a mes' Version, ctam (cf. Epist. ad Sunniam et Fretellam. Praef. E vang. ad Damasum ). excepting that it is in part more literal. 40 GOTHIC BIBLE INVEST.lGATION GO'l'HIG BIBLE INVESTIGATION 41 they translate, for instance, Mt. 5.33: &:n:obwaw; ()/, •<~ xuQ[rp SECTION XI wu~ OQ'XOu~ aou, literally: "You must fulfil your oaths to the PROFESSOR CURME1S ARTICLE Lord," while the preceding phrase: ovx. btLOQx.{iaEL~, "you shall Professor George 0. Curme of Northwestern University not swear falsely," shows that the sense, in good old-fashioned undertook, several years ago, in the Journal of English and English, is: . "keep your promise (if you have made one)." Germ(tnic Philology, vol. X, p. 151 ff., and 335 ff., the task What has been said of Smith and Goodspeed's Version, applies of vindicating the Gothic Bible language as idiomatic Gothic. also to the Version made by Moffat. A rendering of the last He says on p. 160: "It is the object of this tr.eatise to show one of above quotations, which even the simplest could under that Wulfila uniformly wrote idiomatic Gothic, and that his stand, and which would conform to Jerome's slogan of "non language is just as good Gothic where it conforn1s closely to verborum etymologias [i.e., the individual words], sed Scrip the Greek, as where it deviates widely." turae sensum disserere" (cf. p. 38) , appears to me to be: His method intended to show, from examples in other Ger "You shall not break your promises, but keep your engage manic languages, that renderings used in the Gothic were also ments." Luther also transliterated not a few foreign idioms, found in them, from which he concluded as to the idiomatic as for instance II Peter 2.3, which I picked out at random: character of the Gothic text. This method is, on the whole, "Und durch Geiz mit erdichteten Worten werden sie an euch sound, for it is certainly true, as a general axiom, what Gewinn suchen; welchen das Urteil von lange her nicht Streitberg says on p. 165 of his Got. Elementarbuch: saumig ist, und ihre Verdammnis schlaft nicht." The first clause of this quotation may be considered acceptable Ger Es muss in jedem Falle untersucht werden, was als unmittelbare Nachahmung des griech. Textes zu gelten habe und was beanspruchen man; the second clause, however, is a transliteration of the konne, als echt germanisch betrachtet zu werden. Von besonderer Greek OLs "tO xg[µa !:'.x:n:aAm ovx. a(lyEi, while in the third clause Bedeutung flir die Entscheidung dieser Grundfrage sind jene Falle, wo the Greek vucrra~H is transliterated by schliift. Thus, since die gotische Konstruktion in irgend einem Punkte von der griech. in our modern school-ridden age (pardon the expression!) abweicht. Denn allein diese Abweichungen geben uns den Schlilssel partly unidiomatic Bible translations are still in vogue, we zum Verstii.ndnis der wahren got. Syntax ... Es versteht sich von selbst, dass auch die Vergleichung der syntaktischen Verhaltnisse des should not expect, in the way of idiomatic rendering, too much Got. mit denen der tibrigen germanischen Sprachen wertvolle Auf of a translation made more than fifteen hundred years ago. schltisse und Bestii.tigungen zu geben vermag. Sie ist namentlich dort The objection raised at the beginning of this paragraph, von Wert, wo das Gotische zum Griechischen stimmt; nur sie kann hier to the effect that the Goths would not have understood their lehren, ob sklavische Nachahmung oder zufallige 'Obereinstimmung Bible if it were not idiomatic, seems thus to be without sub vorliege. stance, for Bible readers do not seem to be very different from Prof. Curme, in discussing the position of the reflexive ordinary readers who read what they understand and are pronoun, says, as objection to an argument advanced by wont either to skip, or else to consider an arcanum beyond Koppitz, on p. 152: "He forgot to feel the sentence. The their comprehension, what they don't understand. reflexive took its position in Gothic according to its logical and emotional value." Speaking of language feeling, it seems to me that we have it in a genuine way only for our native language. On that account we cannot trust our feeling in matters of foreign 42 GOTHIC BIBLE INVESTIGATION GOTHIC BIBLE INVESTIGATION 43 languages, until we have acquired, by dint of much study and language and forms part of what is called psychology of lan practice in the living foreign tongue, some sort of feeling for guage. This being different, to a greater or smaller extent, what is proper in that language. There does not exist an for all languages, it is impossible to tell how it was working instinctive language feeling which can guide us in deciding itself out in Gothic, so long as the question as to whether or about what is idiomatic in foreign languages. Some scholars not the Gothic text extant is idiomatic has not been settled of Gothic seem to have had the naive idea that it would be on other grounds. For otherwise we are running the risk of possible to reconstruct the Greek original, from which the either foisting upon Gothic the psychology of our own lan Gothic text was translated, by simply translating that text guage, or of trying to explain as Gothic what is really Greek. back into the Greek. I am convinced that there is nobody On p. 155, Prof. Curme says: who could do that, for the simple reason that, even if he had From a minute scientific investigation into the laws that regulate the language feeling of the Gr.eeks of that time, he would word order, it becomes apparent that thought and feeling and a sense still be missing the individual element which distinguishes for rhythm have a large part in assigning words their position in a the style of one author from that of another in the same sentence. As Wulfila endeavored earnestly and consistently to repro language. Likewise, it seems to me, nobody has a language <.luce the thought and feeling of the original, the Gothic word order feeling for Gothic that would be sufficient to decide on that natu1·ally of itself conformed quite closely to that of the popular Greek of the New Testament, for the psychological cmcl rhythmical laws of basis what is idiomatic in Gothic, and what is not. tile two la.ngnages were cit thcit time nlmost identicnl. The second element in Prof. Curme's above quotation is that of logic. But language logic is not the same as abstract The statement contained in the last clause of above quotation logic. If it w.ere, anyone mastering the rules of abstract logic appears to be an a priori statement, the truth of which, it could tell what is correct in any given language, and what is seems to me, has not been proved, on account of which the not. But that is not so. Language is an outgrowth of the conclusion as to the Gothic word order, which is based on it, general physical and psychological make-up of the race among makes the impression of being a fallacy, i. e., a false line of which the language was developed, modified by other cir argumentation. cumstances, such as analogy, topography, history, .etc. Hence On p. 156 there is this other statement: "It seems at first there is no universal language logic which can be applied to glance, that it is a mere slavish imitation that made Wulfila's the reasoning out of the phenomena of all languages, but word order almost exactly like that of the N. T. Greek. In each language has its own logic, which, however, is frequently fact, however, the laws in the two languages coincide. They upset by the cross-currents of analogy and other factors. were both in the same state of historical development." Also The emotional element is of no universal value either. this appears to be an a priori statement, for it does not seem Every individual has its own emotions which are prone to to have been proved as yet by anyone. dictate to his mind the kind of logic he is to apply to the On p. 158: "The writer is convinced that the translation events that enter his life. Hence the slogan quot capita, tot is a good one because it preserves the thought and feeling of sensus. The emotions ruling in matters of language appear to the original. He cannot understand how anyone can study be, as far as any given language in general is concerned, a this translation carefully without coming to the conclusion cross-cut of the emotional make-up of the race speaking that that it is spoken language." The clause in italics of the first language. This emotional complex is different for each sentence of above quotation appears to be likewise an a priori statement, for nobody seems to have as yet shown that the 44 GOTHIC BIBLE INVESTIGATION GOTHIC BIELE INVESTIGATION 45 Gothic Bible translation preserves the thought and feeling of toward them and gave his life for them,'' gives the idiomatic the original. Wulfila, or whoever translated the Gothic Bible, German word-for-word rendering er liebte alle Menschen) war may have tried to do so, but we are not sure that he was gut gegen sie und gab sein Leben fur sie; while this other one, successful. On that account it is by no means certain that "the naughty boy made up his mind to curry favor with the the Goths, when reading their Bible, felt and understood the easy teachers and take advantage of the strict ones," when same thing the Greeks felt and understood when reading translated the same way into German, would be more or less theirs. At any rate, that cannot be deduced from the fact unintelligible to anyone not knowing English. Thus we see that their Bible has the same word order as the Greek orig that while the Gothic Bible is doubtless idiomatic in many inal. If it were so, all literal renderings of foreign texts places, it does not follow that it is idiomatic in everything. would convey the thought and feeling of the foreign text. It translates, for instance, all Greek idioms literally, as was But the fact is that they are to a large extent unintelligible pointed out already on p. 36 ff. of this paper. Prof. Curme without the aid of the text from which the translation was does not touch upon this very important point at all. Hence made. there may be identical idiomatic features in the word order, On pages 166-68 Prof. Curme gives a good example of the too, without the text becoming, for the matter, completely way he is endeavoring to find in other Germanic dialects the idiomatic. parallels of Gothic renderings. He speaks of the three types It is not necessary to touch upon the other points discussed of verb position in the Beowulf. In the first type the verb by Prof. Curme, dealing with the question order, es and da in is at the end of the clause; in the second, auxiliaries are German, the relative pronoun, the Gothic conjunction ei) direct toward the beginning, with infinitives toward the end; and and indirect discourse, the relative clause before its antece- in the third, infinitives are making way for objects, heavy . dent, accusative with infinitiv.e, dative with infinitive, nomin adverbs, etc. In the Elder Edda the third type is used widely, ative of address, predicate nominative, accusative of specifica also the second type, while the first and oldest type soon tion, double accusative, and lastly with the absolute con disappears. In Icelandic the third type has not yet completely structions. His method is everywhere the same as in the case crowded out the second. In Gothic all three types are found, of the three types of verb position, viz., to show that the the third type most commonly. Modern English favors the corresponding Gothic constructions are to be found also in third type, modern German the second. Old Norse and Greek other Germanic dialects. His effort in compiling all this also use the second and third types very commonly, but their material has been very great, but being incomplete, it shows use in the Germanic dialects precludes the suspicion of Greek at best that some Gothic constructions are idiomatic. He influence upon Gothic in this matter. proceeds from the examination of a limited number of in Even granted that the Gothic Bible is a word-for-word stances to generalize too much as to the rest. Hence, since rendering of the Greek, this does not mean that everything he does not account fo:r other equally important features, as in the Gothic text is unidiomatic. Many languages have a for instance the idiomatic phraseology, the use of the present great many identical features, and this is the more true the participle and th.e progressive form, he does not redeem the more closely related they are. Thus, when making an inter claim made at the beginning of showing "that Wulfila uni linear of one of these languages on the basis of another, there formly wrote idiomatic Gothic." He does not take into account will be many things which are idiomatic in the interlinear , either the fact that the Greek text from which the Gothic as for instance, the English, "he loved all men, was kind Bible was translated does not represent, in most of its parts, ;pa 46 GOTHIC BIBLE INVESTIGATION GOTHIC BIBLE INVESTIGATION 47 Greek of the Greeks (Luke being an exception), but Greek of wise similar places, or to the influence of Latin Bible con the Jews, i.e., a type of Greek acquired by the Jews scattered structions (p. 16 ff.) . throughout the Greek speaking world. This Jewish Greek 3. The Gothic translator uses many present participles was interspersed with Hebrew and Aramaic expressions and when there are many in the Greek text, and few when th.ere was, in a general way, under the influence of the mother are few in the original (p. 21 ff.). tongue of the writers of the Gospels and Epistles (cf. Winer, 4. The word order of the Gothic present participle is, Grammar of N. T. Greek). The argument then that Gothic with but thirty-one exceptions, identical with that of the and Greek had reached, at the time of the Gothic Bible trans corresponding Greek participles (p. 24 ff.). lation, the same development, would mean that Gothic had 5. The word order of the progressive form is, with six developed along the lines of both, the genuine xoLv~ Greek and exceptions, in Gothic likewise the same as that of the cor ils Jewish offshoot, an assumption which appears to be some responding Greek forms (p. 32). what of a paradox. 6. The Gothic progressive form is quite likely an imitation of the Greek (p. 32 and 35). 7. There are no idiomatic phrases, neither with present participles nor otherwise, in the Gothic Bible, showing that the Gr.eek idioms were transliterated into Gothic ( p. 36 ff.). 8. It is very possible that more than one translator was working on the Gothic Bible (p. 22). 9. Streitberg's statement on page 5, viz., SECTION XII es liegt in der Natur der Sache, dass sich die tJbertragung so genau als SUMMARY OF PRINCIPAL CONCLUSIONS moglich an den Wortlaut der Vorlage anschliesst, should be 1. The fact that the Gothic translator at times substitutes understood, it seems to me, in the sense indicated in Section X. for the Greek participles relative clauses, nouns, adjectives, The term lnterlinearversion he uses in the same quotation is, finite verbs, infinitives, adverbial clauses, or simple adverbs, of course, very tlexible. Since the expr.ession interlinear is pointing to the general Germanic way of expressing those version indicates prima facie a translation written between ideas which in Greek are expressed mainly by participial con the lines of an original, it may mean anything, from a syn structions. This possibly means that those Gothic present tactical as well as grammatical word-for-word rendering (as participles which express other relationships than substantive, is the AS. Lindisfarne MS) to a full-fledged idiomatic trans adjective and simple adverbial functions are largely imitations lation, although the term is generally taken to be synonymous of the Greek participles (p. 15 ff.). of some sort of transverbalisation, because most interlinears 2. The use of Gothic present participles in places where are of that type. The Gothic Bible appears to represent, in ther.e are no Greek participles, possibly points to the inability the main, Greek syntax garbed in the dress of Gothic gram of Gothic to use in these places other renderings, the same as mar (accidence). Cf. p. 27. in German infinitives with the definite article are convenient 10. Prof. Curme's article shows that the Gothic Bible is substitutes for nouns which are lacking, as is the gerund in doubtless in part idiomatic, but it fails to show that it is English. But some of these Gothic present participles pos idiomatic throughout (p. 41 ff.). sibly owe their existence to reminiscence of parallel or other- 48 GOTHIC BIBLE INVESTIGATION GOTHIC BIBLE INVESTIGATION 49 SECTION XIII SECTION XIV BIBLIOGRAPHY CURRICULUM VITAE 1. Biblia Sacra Juxta Vulgatae Exemplaria et Correctoria Qui hanc disputationem scripsit, Michael Metlen, natus Romana. Edited by A. C. Fillion, Paris, 1887. a. d. XV. Kal. Maias A. D. MDCCCLXXVI. Christiano patre et 2. Bible, The Holy) King James' Version) and Douay Version. Barbara matre, parentibus quos iam mortuos luget, coniugibus 3. Bright, James W., An Anglo-Saxon Reader) New York, ex Hergersberg, vico provinciae Rhenanae in Germaniae 1917. regione occidentali, aetatem puerilem in terra natali domique 4. Codex Bezae) Berolini, MCMXXV. parentum peregit. Primis litterarum elementis in sua patria 5. Curme, George 0., "Is the Gothic Bible Gothic?" Article indutus, anno MCMIV. in Universitatem Amstelodamensem in Journal of English and Germanic Phil.) X, 151 ff., receptus est, ubi per spatium quattuor annorum, id est, ad and 335 ff. annum MCMIX. usque, studiis philologicis operam dedit. His 6. Friedrichsen, C. W. S., The Gothic Version of the Gosvels, studiis finitis, consilium iniit ut in continentem Americanam London, 1926. transmigraret. Hoc facto, ad Universitatem Chicaginiensem 7. Gering, H., tJber den synt. Gebrauch der Partizipia im se contulit qua anno MCMXVI. ad gradum Magistri in Artibus Gotischen) Halle, 1873. ad.missus est. In hac schola tria semestria in studiis versatus 8. Gildersleeve, B. L., Latin Grammar, Boston, 1903. est, duo videlicet ante gradum perceptum et unum post. Inter 9. Moffatt, James, The Parallel New Testament) New York, et post haec studia sibi paravit ea quae ad cotidianum victum 1930. spectabant munere fungendo praeceptoris. Cum a Civitatibus 10. Plater, W. E., and White, H. J., A Grammar of the Vul Foederatis Septentrionalibus Americanis Germaniae bellum gate, Oxford, 1926. indictum esset, nomen militis professus est stipendiaque in 11. Skeat, Walter W., The Holy Gospels in Anglo-Saxon, castris fecit quo loco rursus praeceptoris officium gessit, Northiimbrian and Old Jlllerdan Vers'ions, Cambridge, commilitonibus suis ducibusque ordinum qui ad sedem belli 1887. gerendi processuri erant initia linguae Francogallicae tradens. 12. , The Student's Chaucer, Oxford, 1929. Tandem bello confecto, profectus est in Mexiconem, ad urbem 13. Smith, J. M. P., and Goodspeed, E. J., The Bible-An caput civitatis pari nomine, ubi in universitate eiusdem urbis American Translation, University of Chicago Press. studiis litterarum Hispanarum interfuit per quattuor semes 14. Streitberg, Wilh., Die Gotische Bibel, Heidelberg, 1919. trium spatium. Inter haec linguam Anglicam in scholis 15. , Gotfaches Elementarbuch) Heidelberg, 1920. publicis 11.foxicanis docebat. Horum studiorum tempore non 16. Trautmann, Moritz, Das Beowulfiiecl, Bonn, 1904. dum peracto, princeps civitatis ei munus interpretis tribuit, 17. Von Soden, Hermann, Die Schriften des Ne.uen Testa cui officio vacavit usque ad tempus reditionis in Civitates mentes in ihrer altesten erreichbaren Textgestalt, Foederatas. Postremo, regressus in agrum Civitatum Foed Gottingen, 1911-1913. eratarum, studiorum ad felicem finem perducendorum causa 18. Winer, G. B., A Grammar of New Testament Greelc. scholas Universitatis Septentrionali-Occidentalis (Northwest Translated by W. F. Moulton, Edinburgh, 1882. ern) per tempus duorum semestrium frequentavit. Cuius rei exitus fuit ut Doctoris in Philosophia litterae ei concessae 50 GOTHIC BIBLE INVESTIGATION essent Idibus Iuniis huius ipsius anni MCMXXXII., gratias quam maximas agente eo omnibus suis praeceptoribus optime de se meritis. Nunc magisterium litterarum Germanarum in Universitate Loyola Chicagine urbe profitetur.