{"title":"拉丁文《波利卡普》、分裂假说和多语言文本","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":44928,"journal":{"name":"VIGILIAE CHRISTIANAE","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"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\":44928,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"VIGILIAE CHRISTIANAE\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"VIGILIAE CHRISTIANAE\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/15700720-bja10083\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"RELIGION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"VIGILIAE CHRISTIANAE","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15700720-bja10083","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"RELIGION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
波利卡普的《致腓立比书》(Pol.Phil.)所有现存的希腊文手稿 (G) 均来自一个来源,即 Vaticanus Graecus 859 (V),该手稿仅保留了部分文本。因此,编辑们在复制 G 的同时,根据需要补充完整保存的旧拉丁文译本 (L) 以及尤西比乌斯(Eusebius)中保存的希腊文片段。本文分两部分进行:首先,我对译文进行了仔细分析,得出结论认为 L 提供了一个相对忠实的直译版本,也提供了一个保存相当完好的书信证明。其次,我证明了众所周知的 "分裂假说 "依赖于对 L 的不完整分析。简而言之,我认为《Pol.Phil.》的复合、多语言批判版本的构建造成了文本问题,而这些问题并未反映在文本的个别手稿传统中。
The Latin Polycarp, the Division Hypothesis, and Polylingual Text
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.
期刊介绍:
Vigiliae Christianae contains articles and short notes of an historical, cultural, linguistic or philological nature on early Christian literature written after the New Testament, as well as on Christian epigraphy and archaeology. Church and dogmatic history are dealt with as they relate to social history; Byzantine and medieval literature are treated as far as they exhibit continuity with the early Christian period. ● Leading journal in its field. ● Extensive book review section giving a critical analysis of other titles related to the field.