{"title":"The Latin Polycarp, the Division Hypothesis, and Polylingual Text","authors":"Grant W. Gasse","doi":"10.1163/15700720-bja10083","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPolycarp’s Letter to the Philippians (Pol.Phil.) is poorly attested. All extant Greek manuscripts (G) stem from one source, Vaticanus Graecus 859 (V), which preserves only a portion of the text. Accordingly, editors reproduce G, supplemented as needed with the old Latin translation (L), preserved in its entirety, and with Greek fragments preserved in Eusebius. I argue that L ought to be treated as a discrete witness to the epistle, and not merely as supplement to G. The paper proceeds in two parts: first, I offer a careful analysis of the translation, concluding that L offers a relatively faithful, literal translation and a comparably well-preserved attestation to the epistle. Second, I demonstrate that the well-known “division hypothesis” relies upon an incomplete analysis of L. In short, I contend that the construction of composite, polylingual critical editions of Pol.Phil. has occasioned textual problemata unreflected in the text’s individual manuscript traditions.","PeriodicalId":0,"journal":{"name":"","volume":" 404","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-01-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15700720-bja10083","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Polycarp’s Letter to the Philippians (Pol.Phil.) is poorly attested. All extant Greek manuscripts (G) stem from one source, Vaticanus Graecus 859 (V), which preserves only a portion of the text. Accordingly, editors reproduce G, supplemented as needed with the old Latin translation (L), preserved in its entirety, and with Greek fragments preserved in Eusebius. I argue that L ought to be treated as a discrete witness to the epistle, and not merely as supplement to G. The paper proceeds in two parts: first, I offer a careful analysis of the translation, concluding that L offers a relatively faithful, literal translation and a comparably well-preserved attestation to the epistle. Second, I demonstrate that the well-known “division hypothesis” relies upon an incomplete analysis of L. In short, I contend that the construction of composite, polylingual critical editions of Pol.Phil. has occasioned textual problemata unreflected in the text’s individual manuscript traditions.