Wulfila and Oddur Gottskálksson

Transcription

1

2 Christian T. Petersen (ed.): Gotica minora VI. Theologica & Onomastica. Syllabus, Aschaffenburg Magnús Snædal Reykjavík, Iceland Wulfila and Oddur Gottskálksson The extant Gothic text of the Pauline Epistles of the New Testament is found in manuscripts preserved in Biblioteca Ambrosiana in Milan. These are so-called palimpsests, i.e. the Gothic text has been scraped off and then written over with a Latin text. These manuscripts are usually referred to as Codices Ambrosiani A and B, and their texts overlap to a considerable extent. They were first published by C. O. Castiglione in the years He inspected the manuscripts again and made some corrections to that text for von der Gabelentz and Löbe, who published the text of the Gothic Bible with a grammar and a dictionary Andreas Uppström studied the manuscripts in the summer of One can say that he was well prepared as he had then newly finished his edition of the text of the Silver Bible (Codex Argenteus, 1854 and 1857). Uppström corrected Castiglione s readings in many instances. A new edition based on his study was finished in 1868 but he had passed away in 1865 so he could not finish it himself. Wilhelm Braun then checked the manuscripts around 1900 and his new readings were first published in Streitberg s edition In some instances Braun deviates from Uppström and goes back to Castiglione s readings. One such example will be studied a little closer in this paper. In Streitberg s edition, verse 8 of chapter 4 of the Colossians is printed as follows (the text of B, but A has duþe): þanei insandida du izwis duþþe ei kunnjai ƕa bi izwis ist, jah whom (I) sent to you for this that (he might) know what by you is, and gaþrafstjai hairtona izwara, (might) encourage hearts your. In this passage the form kunnjai is suspicious. Grammatically it must be analysed as an irregular 3 pers. sing. pres. opt. of the pret.-pres. verb kunnan. A correct form would be kunni. That form is not attested as such in the Gothic corpus, only kunnei, with ei for i (John 17:23), and frakunni (e.g. 1. Cor. 16:11). The form kunnjai would be explained as having been influenced by the 1. class of weak verbs. Notice that here Streitberg s text is based on Braun s reading, who in this case has the same reading as Castiglione. Uppström, on the other hand, read kunnjau, that is, the regular form of 1 pers. sing. pres. opt. The meaning of the text then changes from that he might know to that I might know. Uppström apparently had no doubt that the correct reading in both manuscripts is kunnjau. It should be mentioned that he had, before he went to Milan, written down the whole text of both manuscripts on

3 folio sheets, with notes in the margin on readings he thought should be especially checked. He then wrote his corrections into this manuscript. It is now preserved in Uppsala Universitätsbibliotek (R 510 fol.). At the passage under discussion, Uppström has written the following word-forms in the margin, kunnjau?, kunnei?, kunni? but then crossed out the two latter. Therefore it is obvious that he found the reading kunnjai suspicious. In the year 1936 the manuscripts were published in a facsimile, edited by Jan de Vries. It has to be admitted, though, that many plates are of little use to say the least. They are not good enough to base a decision of controversial reading upon them, at least not for sure. I checked this particular reading in the facsimile edition. In short Cod. A reveals nothing that can be used to decide. In Cod. B one can relatively easily read kunnja and then remnants of a letter, close to the a, that could be read i. But it should be kept in mind that the Gothic text is written continuously (scriptio continua) so there are no spaces between words. The space between kunnja and ƕa is wider than expected if it only contained an i, i.e. if one reads kunnjai there is an unexplained gap between it and ƕa. On the other hand, if one reads kunnjau the u fills the space. Therefore, I find it very likely that Uppström s reading is the right one. All editions of the Gothic Bible text between Gabelentz & Löbe and Streitberg were based on Uppström s editions. 1 In Bernhardt s edition from 1875 we find the following note on kunnjau: [ ] in den ältesten uncialhandschriften fehlt bekanntlich das iota subscriptum, daher das misverständnis des übersetzers According to this, Wulfila took the ambiguous Greek form ΓΝΩ as 1 pers. sing., γνῶ, instead of 3 pers. sing., γνῷ. Also, we have to conclude from Bernhardt s words that 1 In fact, one can say that Streitberg also bases his edition on Uppström s text to a great extent. Otto von Friesen (1927) points out e.g., that Streitberg uses, without a notice, between 30 and 40 new readings of Uppström in the text of 2. Corinthians, that is preserved as a whole in Cod. B. Von Friesen also inspected 40 instances where Braun s readings differed from Uppström s, and he concluded that Uppström was right in the majority of the cases and, therefore, Uppström s text should continue to be the basis until the controversy had been settled. I checked all the instances where Braun disagrees with Uppström s reading and my conclusion was the same, although the facsimile is often not decisive. To look again on the B-text of 2. Corinthians, that is relatively legible, Braun wanted to revert to Castiglione s readings in nine cases. In at least six cases, Uppström s readings are almost certainly right. Then, Braun s readings differed from both, Castiglione and Uppström, in about 20 cases. Only in three or four cases he appears to be almost certainly right. The manuscripts were cleansed in 1910 because of a planned facsimile edition. Braun then checked them again and converted back to Uppström s readings in some cases. The result was published in Streitberg s 2 nd edition 1919 (pp ). It is clear, then, that Uppström s text is more reliable than Braun s and much more reliable than one would infer from Streitberg s introduction to his edition (pp. XXVII XXIX). There he states among other things that Braun had [ ] den Wortlaut der Mailänder Handschriften endgültig festgestellt [ ] (his emphasis). 2

4 the 1 pers. sing. is not supported by any text tradition. I have not found it in the critical editions I have consulted. 2 Therefore, it came as a nice surprise when I by chance looked this up in Nýja testamenti Odds Gottskálkssonar 3 and read the following: þann eg hefi þar fyrir til yðar sent, það eg vissa [1 pers. sing.] hverninn yður færi að og það hann hugsvalaði yðar hjörtum The question arises why Oddur has the 1 pers. sing. as Wulfila does. It is excluded that both have misunderstood a Greek uncial-text in the same way, and we know nothing about Oddur s knowledge of Greek (cf. Jón Helgason 1929: , 200). It is much more likely that Oddur s text is based on some model. But what model? As Guðrún Kvaran, Gunnlaugur Ingólfsson, and Jón Aðalsteinn Jónsson mention in their introduction to the new edition of Nýja testamenti Odds from 1988 (pp. XXII XXIII), Luther s Bible-translation is Oddur s main model. I have only been able to check one German Bible that is set after Luther s translation of It is the last one he revised himself and is younger than Oddur s translation. There, 3 pers. sing. is used in this passage: Welchen ich habe darumb zu euch gesand. Das er erfare, wie es sich mit euch helt, vnd das er ewre hertzen ermane, Many things are obscure about what editions Oddur used in addition to Luther. Jón Helgason (1929) did some preliminary research on this matter as Kvaran, Ingólfsson, and Jónsson mention but this question was though outside his main issue. They add (p. XXIII): En það væri verðugt viðfangsefni guðfræðingum og textafræðingum að halda þessari athugun Jóns áfram og komast sem næst því hvaða útgáfu Oddur muni hafa notað. [But it would be a worthy task for theologians and philologists to continue Jón s study and find out which edition Oddur most likely used.] Perhaps the example under discussion could be useful. And an answer to the question could also have some importance in the textual study of the Gothic Bible. I would like to thank Kristján Búason for assistance in checking biblical texts, Veturliði Óskarsson for useful comments on an earlier version of this paper, and Gunnlaugur Ingólfsson for introducing me to Gothic. 2 There is another (more original) textual variant to this particular verse of the Colossians and then it is identical to Ephesians 6:22 ( for that you might know what is by us ). 3 The whole New Testament was first translated into Icelandic by Oddur Gottskálksson and published in It is most often referred to as Nýja testamenti Odds Gottskálkssonar, and the new edition from 1988 bears that title. All my references are to this new edition. 3

5 Postscript 2006: This is actually a translation of my paper Wulfila og Oddur Gottskálksson in Gullastokkur færður Gunnlaugi Ingólfssyni fimmtugum 4. desember Reykjavík 1994, pp Here I have just made a few necessary emendations and added footnote 3. Also, I have found the 1 pers. sing. form γνῶ in one printed Novum Testamentum Graece et Latine from 1550, but it is most likely a typographical error as the Latin text has 3 pers. sing., cognoscat. Finally, I thank Christian T. Petersen for reading and correcting this version of the paper. REFERENCES BERNHARDT, Ernst Vulfila oder die gotische Bibel mit dem entsprechenden griechischen text und mit kritischem und erklärendem commentar nebst dem kalender, der Skeireins und den gotischen urkunden. Verlag der Buchhandlung des Waisenhauses, Halle a. S. Die Bibel. Die ganze Heilige Schrift des Alten und Neuen Testaments. In der deutschen Übersetzung von D. Martin Luther mit Kupferstichen von Matthaeus Merian. Prisma, Gütersloh CASTIGLIONE, C. O Gothicae versionis epistolarum Divi Pauli ad Galatas, ad Philippenses, ad Colossenses, ad Thessalonicenses primae quae supersunt, ex Ambrosianae bibliothecae palimpsestis deprompta cum adnotationibus editit. Regiis typis, Mediolani. VON FRIESEN, Otto Om läsningen av Codices gotici Ambrosiani. Almqvist & Wiksells boktryckeri-a.-b./otto Harrassowitz, Uppsala/Leipzig. [Skrifter utgivna av K. Humanistiska Vetenskaps-Samfundet i Uppsala. 24:10.]. VON DER GABELENTZ, H. C. & J. LOEBE Ulfilas. Veteris et Novi Testamenti Versionis Gothicae Fragmenta quae supersunt. Vol. I, Textum continens, vol. II, pars prior, Glossarium; pars posterior, Grammaticam Linguae Gothicae Continens. F. A. Brockhaus, Leipzig. [Gerstenberg Verlag, Hildesheim 1980.] HELGASON, Jón Málið á Nýja testamenti Odds Gottskálkssonar. Hið íslenska fræðafélag, Kaupmannahöfn. [Málvísindastofnun Háskóla Íslands, Reykjavík 1999.] Novum Testamentum Graece et Latine, diligentia des. Erasmi Roterod. Emendatissimum, & iam tertio ad multa exemplaria, tam impressa quàm manuscripta, diligenter castigatum & editum. Adiecta svnt argumenta eiusdem uná marginalibus concordantijs. Basileæ apud Nicolaum Bryling. Anno M. D. L. Nýja testamenti Odds Gottskálkssonar. Sigurbjörn Einarsson, Guðrún Kvaran, Gunnlaugur Ingólfsson, Jón Aðalsteinn Jónsson rituðu inngang. Lögberg, Reykjavík STREITBERG, Wilhelm Die gotische Bibel. Erster Teil. Der gotische Text und seine griechische Vorlage. Mit Einleitung, Lesarten und Quellennachweisen sowie den kleineren Denkmälern als Anhang. Sechste, unveränderte Auflage. Carl Winter Universitätsverlag, Heidelberg. UPPSTRÖM, Andreas Codices Gotici Ambrosiani sive epistularum Pauli Esrae Nehemiae versionis goticae fragmenta, quae iterum recognovit, per lineas singulas descripsit, adnotationibus instruxit Andreas Uppström. W. Schultz reg. acad. typogr., Upsaliae. Wulfilae codices Ambrosiani rescripti epistularum evangelicarum textum exhibentes phototypice editi et prooemio instructi a Jano de Vries, I. Textus, II. Cod. A et Taurinensis, III. Cod. B. C. D. Molfese, Torino/Firenze