The Latin Polycarp, the Division Hypothesis, and Polylingual Text
In: Vigiliae ChristianaeSearch for other papers by Grant W. Gasse in
Current site
Google Scholar
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.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 197 | 134 | 10 |
| Full Text Views | 64 | 50 | 1 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 218 | 133 | 3 |
The Latin Polycarp, the Division Hypothesis, and Polylingual Text
In: Vigiliae ChristianaeSearch for other papers by Grant W. Gasse in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
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.
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 197 | 134 | 10 |
| Full Text Views | 64 | 50 | 1 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 218 | 133 | 3 |
