Houghton's The Latin New Testament
https://www.amazon.com/Latin-New-Testament-History-Manuscripts-ebook-dp-B019WUZS2S/dp/B019WUZS2S
I doubt Logos will go latin anytime soon (or aramaic, for that matter). There's an embarrassingly long string of old latin forum posts, many unfortunately having my name included.
But if you only want one resource to dabble in the pre-Vulgate world of the latin NT, this would be it. Logos has the century-old Burkitt's Italia (still pretty good). This is the modern version. I read the Kindle ($15!) ... then got the hard copy to add to my jewish volumes that Logos doesn't carry.
Key interesting points (for me):
- Basically, you're looking at late 2nd century. But it's also the dating of the first clear usage of the gospels by Christian leaders. The latin mss copies are much later (as also the OT-MT, targums, etc).
- Unlike the greek, the latin mss's appear to begin with a single translation, and then variant outwards.
- As you move forward in time, you can watch, as they struggle with 'Christian' words and concepts. But the attempts also give you a good feel for how they looked at semantic meaning.
- Jerome's subsequent Vulgate really isn't the latin monolith that subsequent authors present. Jerome was bouncing around, quite a bit.
- Greek-y-wise, the old latin patterns to what's been called the western text (my favorite, of course).
Worth your pennies.
Just as additional info, Elliott's Survey of Manuscripts Used in Editions of the Greek NT (scanning apparati) is a bit dated (NA26, etc), but has a good appendix of the old latin, that extends beyond the usual editions. Libraries are dumping volumes like this, so, cheap.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
Comments
-
Thanks Denise!
this is a very interesting resource. Of course, contentwise (the author puts forward the thesis that to speak of pre-Vulgate "old Latin" texts and then the Vulgate is somewhat misleading, since Vulgate texts developed as reworks from prior texts. Houghton says in the preface that
The Latin New Testament is therefore a continuum in which a particular form of text eventually gained predominance, a situation comparable to that of the later hegemony of the Byzantine ‘Majority’ text in the Greek tradition
and
the evidence appears to point towards a single Latin version standing behind the whole of the surviving traditionH.A.G. Houghton, The Latin New Testament (Oxford University Press, 2016).
I'm looking forward to read more of that!
On the other hand, the book (even though published by OUP) is licensed under CC BY-ND-NC and officially shared as a free PDF. This PDF can be opened by MS Word and converted into DOCX format quite easily (which is legal for me as a non-commercial user to do - even breaking DRM to convert into other formats is legal under this license). There are quirks in it, for sure, but it looked good enough to build a PB from it and that's what I did. Took only five minutes from reading your post. I may share a version of it - the license provides for that - but want to see about the PB quality throughout the book before doing so.
Have joy in the Lord!
0 -
Looks interesting.
The next question is where the old Latin texts are available to read?
Could they get some to Logos?
Gold package, and original language material and ancient text material, SIL and UBS books, discourse Hebrew OT and Greek NT. PC with Windows 11
0 -
Veli Voipio said:
The next question is where the old Latin texts are available to read?
Houghton maintains a website with errata to the book and links to available scans of the Latin manuscripts: https://sites.google.com/site/haghoughton/lnt
Have joy in the Lord!
0 -
Veli Voipio said:
Looks interesting.
The next question is where the old Latin texts are available to read?
Could they get some to Logos?
NB's answer is more recent. But my favorite is the (much) older comparison of Old Latin and the Vulgate with notes. I like the pdf:
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=bibliorumsacroru01saba&t=icab&ia=web
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
Thanks NB and Denise!
The next question (sorry for the progressive off-track!), I could not paste the picture to my notes in Logos.
I would love to see all the existing old Latin, or at lest some of it transcribed and tagged in Logos, in addition to this Houghton's book.
Gold package, and original language material and ancient text material, SIL and UBS books, discourse Hebrew OT and Greek NT. PC with Windows 11
0 -
NB.Mick said:Veli Voipio said:
The next question is where the old Latin texts are available to read?
Houghton maintains a website with errata to the book and links to available scans of the Latin manuscripts: https://sites.google.com/site/haghoughton/lnt
Wowsie! Glad I clicked on this thread. Houghton’s site is linked to some excellent PDF‘s from Brill, et al. I have never really looked too much into Old Latin MSS until now.
I know I already mentioned this in another thread, but I have been searching for older translations that contain Matthew 28.19 inasmuch as I‘ve been having a dialogue w. a retired Bible College president who doesn’t believe that Matthew 28.19 is original (cue the old Coneybeare arguments). He is highly esteemed, very studious and carries a lot of weight w. many pastors I know. I fear he’s affecting them concerning this verse (that I obviously accept as authentic).
A sticking point in our discussions has been ancient translations that contain the verse. If I could point him to a second century translation (i.e., the actual MS itself) w. the verse in tact (e.g., not in a different scribal hand, no signs of interpolation, etc.)—he has essentially conceded that would be strong evidence for the reading as we have it. I didn’t even think about the Latin translation(s) until this thread.
If anyone locates a link w. this passage in an old translation such as Old Latin I would greatly appreciate it. In the meantime I am going to be slowly working through all of the papers on Houghton’s site👍👏🏼!
0 -
Puddin’ said:
He is highly esteemed, very studious and carries a lot of weight w. many pastors I know. I fear he’s affecting them concerning this verse (that I obviously accept as authentic).
Just remember the original text can also be late. Theologically, there's nothing that demands an early text, beyond churchmen claims. Added or original, you end up in the same place.
Not mentioned above, but also interesting. The old latin tended to be packaged by book group. A gospels package (Mat, John, Luke, Mark was common), a Paul package, and a Acts/Rev package. Apparently, it allowed a more affordable set of copies. The Acts/Rev seemed odd to me, until I realized you could view the early church and the Revelations as a descriptive continuum.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
Denise said:
Just remember the original text can also be late. Theologically, there's nothing that demands an early text, beyond churchmen claims. Added or original, you end up in the same place.
Exactly!
0
