EXPLICIT REFERENCES TO NEW TESTAMENT VARIANT READINGS AMONG GREEK AND LATIN CHURCH FATHERS VOLUME II A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate School of the University of Notre Dame in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy by Amy M. Donaldson _______________________________ Brian Daley, Director Graduate Program in Theology Notre Dame, Indiana December 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME TWO: TEXTS Introduction . 335 Catalogue . 344 Additional Texts . 548 Appendixes . 578 Bibliography . 621 x INTRODUCTION 1. Sources The starting point for the Catalogue was Metzger‘s expanded list (based on Nestle‘s original) of explicit references to variants among the fathers.1 Since this list includes only names and Scripture references, it was necessary to find each of these texts within the works of each father.2 Search engines, such as the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae and Patrologia Latina, have been invaluable in finding these texts and further augmenting this list through a search of key phrases. Since Nestle‘s and Metzger‘s lists were compiled primarily through a manual search of Tischendorf‘s apparatus,3 this also provided an important resource; in at least one instance where no additional source has been located for the patristic quotation in question, Tischendorf himself has been used as the cited source. In imitation of this strategy, the apparatuses of NA27 and UBS4 have also been manually scoured for references not included in Metzger‘s list. A combination 1 Bruce M. Metzger, ―St. Jerome‘s Explicit References to Variant Readings in Manuscripts of the New Testament‖ in Text and Interpretation: Studies in the New Testament Presented to Matthew Black (ed. E. Best and R. McL. Wilson; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1979), 188-90. Cf. E. Nestle, Einführung in das griechische Neue Testament (2nd ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1899), 266-67; Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the Greek New Testament (trans. W. Edie; Williams and Norgate, 1901), 165-67. The lists are presented in a comparative chart in Appendix A, below. 2 Due to this limited nature of Metzger‘s list, unearthing all texts on the list was challenging, and at some points has thus far proved impossible (this is especially true for examples that apparently were culled from the apparatus of a previous edition of UBS but no longer appear in UBS4—these may in fact not be explicit references to variants, which is why they could not be located). For this reason, not all items on Metzger‘s list are included in the Catalogue; other texts were excluded because they did not qualify as explicit references to known variants. See the chart in Appendix A. 3 Constantin von Tischendorf, Novum Testamentum Graece (2 vols.; 8th ed. critica maior; 1872; repr. Graz, Austria: Akademische Druck, 1965). Metzger also expanded this list by searching through the UBS apparatus, prior to the 4th edition. 335 of these methods has provided a representative, if not comprehensive, list of explicit references to variant readings among the Greek and Latin church fathers. 2. Parameters In order to facilitate broader use of the Catalogue beyond the limitations of the present study, the net has been cast widely to glean as many references as possible, extending as late as the 12th century. For the Greek authors, the basic criterion to identify an explicit reference to a variant is that the author indicates knowledge of more than one reading for a specific word or passage. The variant need not be attested elsewhere, but it must clearly be part of the MS tradition rather than merely a suggested emendation; however, since the line between known variants and conjectures is sometimes blurry (and since the latter are also valuable for understanding textual scholarship in antiquity), speculative discussions have also been included but are relegated to a separate section, the Additional Texts. Among the Latin authors, issues of translation complicate the matter. When a Latin father mentions multiple readings in the NT text, it can be any one of at least four types: (1) comparison of the Greek term with the Latin equivalent without any discernment of MS traditions; (2) comparison of Greek MSS with the Latin, or vice versa; (3) differentiation between various Latin MSS; or (4) merely a discussion of translation options, either differences between the Greek and Latin meanings or different Latin renderings of the Greek (as attested in the MSS or proposed by the author). These four types of discussions thus provide the following evidence (in agreement with the numbering above): (1) comparison of the Old Latin, Itala, or Vulgate as a version against 336 the Greek tradition; (2) distinction of trends among Greek or Latin MSS; (3) information about the Old Latin, Itala, or Vulgate without reference to the Greek; or (4) translation options rather than variants (unless the different translations emerge from separate Greek variants). While information about the Latin versions is important to NT textual criticism, the purpose of the Catalogue is to provide evidence for the Greek text, and therefore only discussions that testify to Greek variants are included. For this reason and the constraints of space and time, the Latin material is intended only to be representative, not comprehensive, as a supplement to the Greek material; without the Latin material, any discussion of the Greek text, especially in the 4th and 5th centuries, would be incomplete.4 Therefore, the Latin material that testifies to or reinforces Greek variants has been included in the Catalogue, whereas discussions relating to issues of translation or variants known strictly in the Latin tradition have been excluded or relegated to the Additional Texts. Some of the latter have been included in this study only because they appear in either Nestle‘s or Metzger‘s list. 3. Limitations When Nestle and Metzger enthusiastically recommended a study such as this, their words held much hope and promise for the objective value of this material in comparison with the subjective discussions of patristic quotations and allusions. But any study based on patristic materials is riddled with its own problems, and so this Catalogue, 4 Unfortunately, the choice to exclude the Syriac evidence also limits the conclusions that may be drawn (see further comments on the Syriac in the General Introduction). However, the valuable Syriac discussions on variants appear to come predominantly from a later period than is of primary interest here, making their absence more of a gap in the Catalogue than in the analysis in Volume I. 337 while useful, will not yield as much concrete data as they had hoped.5 One chief problem is the issue of critical editions. While the Catalogue makes use of the most recent critical texts of each patristic author‘s work whenever possible, the dearth of critical editions for many church fathers has made reliance on Migne an unfortunate necessity at some points. As noted above, in at least one instance (see also the notes in Appendix A) the quotation could not be located in Migne or a critical edition and is therefore cited from Tischendorf since his own source could not be accessed. A further issue is attribution. Many of the texts given here are found among the catenae, for which authorship is often dubious; some texts are found both within a later commentary and separately in a scholion attributed to a different author (particularly Origen); and other texts are found within dubious or spurious works. Even those works that are generally considered authentic may be disputed by some scholars, or the portion of the work within which the quoted text falls may be in doubt. In the interest of casting the net widely, the Catalogue includes all such dubious and spurious texts; while they do have value by illustrating broader trends in which variants are commented upon and common arguments are used to weigh variants, such texts are of limited value in discussions for specific fathers, places, or eras (and therefore are generally not discussed in the analysis in Chaps. 2-4). 4. Format Each catalogue entry provides the text and translation for the quotation of the explicit reference, along with the other external evidence and a brief discussion of the 5 This point is discussed more fully in the General Introduction and the Conclusion. 338 quotation‘s context and/or the variant‘s treatment by the author. The entries are arranged in canonical order, then in alphabetical order by author. The Greek and Latin fathers are intermingled. As noted above, those examples that are purely conjecture on the part of the author (no variants are attested or expressly cited) or possibly witness only the Latin tradition or translational rather then textual variation, and are still worth including, have been placed in the Additional Texts. However, on a few occasions passages better placed in Additional Texts have been retained in the Catalogue in order to keep discussions of particular variants gathered in one place. 4.1. Number, Author, and Work Each text, or pair of texts from the same work, has been given a paragraph number to be used in Volume I for ease of reference (e.g., §25). Passages in the Additional Texts are included in the Catalogue numbering to keep them within the canonical order. When multiple authors address a specific variant or verse, their texts are arranged alphabetically by the author under whose name the text has been published; when there are multiple discussions for a variant by the same author, an attempt has been made to place these in chronological order. In some instances, the text is actually a dubious or spurious work (generally referred to here as ―Pseudo-,‖ following Nestle and Metzger). In the case of scholia that have been attributed to different authors by different editors, both authors and citations are given together, along with both copies of the text if they differ significantly.