Page 1 of 2

"We Did Yield in Submission" (Gal 2:5). An examination of textual variants in Latin d and Gk D* w/ images

Posted: Mon Jun 19, 2023 7:44 am
by gryan
Thesis: The Old Latin text that reads "For an hour we did yield in submission" [ad horam cessimus subjectioni, Victorinus' text] preserves the authentic words of Paul [οἷς οὐδὲ πρὸς ὥραν εἴξαμεν τῇ ὑποταγῇ], and the sense is preserved in Acts 16, the circumcision of Timothy (as argued by Tertullian and Victorinus and me here: viewtopic.php?p=155204#p155204). Irenaeus and Jerome had the accurate words of Paul in the Old Latin text, but they misread them as referring to the initial decision to go up to Jerusalem according to Acts 15.

Irenaeus
Against Heresies, III.13.3.

But that Paul acceded to [the request of] those who summoned him to the apostles,
on account of the question [which had been raised], and went up to them, with Barnabas, to Jerusalem, not without reason, but that the liberty of the Gentiles might be confirmed by them, he does himself say, in the Epistle to the Galatians:

"Then, fourteen years after, I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking also Titus.
But I went up by revelation, and communicated to them that Gospel which I preached among the Gentiles."

And again he says,

"For an hour we did give place to subjection, that the truth of the gospel might continue with you."

If, then, any one shall, from the Acts of the Apostles, carefully scrutinize the time concerning which it is written that he went up to Jerusalem on account of the forementioned question, he will find those years mentioned by Paul coinciding with it.

Thus the statement of Paul harmonizes with, and is, as it were, identical with, the testimony of Luke regarding the apostles.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... book3.html

Jerome
Comment on Gal 2:5

...If, however, someone places trust in a Latin manuscript, we should accept it according to the earlier sense: that the yielding for a moment was not about Titus not being circumcised, but about going to Jerusalem [aut si latini exemplaris alicui fides placet, secundum superiorem sensum accipere debemus: ut ad horam cessio non circumcidendi titi, sed eundi hierosolymam fuerit]. For this reason, Paul and Barnabas yielded to the submission of going to Jerusalem due to the disturbance caused by the law in Antioch. They did it in order to have their opinion confirmed through the letter of the apostles and for the truth of the gospel to remain among the Galatians

Acts 15:1-2 about going to Jerusalem
Then some men came down from Judea [τινες κατελθόντες ἀπὸ τῆς Ἰουδαίας]
and were teaching the brothers, “Unless you are circumcised [Ἐὰν μὴ περιτμηθῆτε} according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.”

Having been brought about, then, no small commotion and discussion by Paul and Barnabas with them, they appointed Paul and Barnabas and certain others out from them to go up to Jerusalem, to the apostles and elders, about this question.

Image of οἷς οὐδὲ (Gal 2:5) added to the original text* of Codex Claromontanus, D*

Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2023 12:51 am
by gryan
In Codex Claromontanus, Gk D*
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Claromontanus
https://www.bible-researcher.com/codex-d2.html

The original text lacked οἷς οὐδὲ

But it was added onto a line that reads οἷς οὐδὲ πρὸς ὥραν εἴξαμεν

You can see the obviously added-on words on the left if you scroll down here:
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b ... /f502.item

Re: Image of οἷς οὐδὲ (Gal 2:5) added to the text of Codex Claromontanus

Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2023 5:59 am
by gryan
gryan wrote: Wed Jun 21, 2023 12:51 am In Codex Claromontanus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Claromontanus
https://www.bible-researcher.com/codex-d2.html

The original text lacked οἷς οὐδὲ

But it was added onto a line that reads οἷς οὐδὲ πρὸς ὥραν εἴξαμεν

You can see the obviously added-on words on the left if you scroll down here:
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b ... /f502.item
Codex Claromontanus, is a "diglot" manuscript. The Greek and Latin texts are on facing pages. Thus, on the opposite page, we see the Old Latin, d, translation (used by Irenaeus, Victorinus and Tertullian) of the original Greek text, before the interpolation, οἷς οὐδὲ. Thus, the Old Latin lacks the words of interpolation, Quibus neque, found in Jerome's Vulgate of Gal 2:5 (Quibus neque ad horam cessimus subjectione).

Instead, scrolling down to lines 11, 12 and 13, we see the Old Latin translation of
the original Greek "Western non-interpolation":

ut nos in servitutem redigerent.
ad horam cessimus
subjectione

https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b ... /f503.item

Re: Image of οἷς οὐδὲ (Gal 2:5) added to the text of Codex Claromontanus

Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2023 6:54 am
by gryan
In this and the posts to follow, I will take a close look at additional key textual variants in the Gk and Latin manuscripts, D* and d (with images).

Two pages later, at Gal 2:11 and Gal 2:12, textual criticism gets more tricky. First, notice that in D (as in D's whole text of Gal), Κηφᾶς is rendered Πέτρος.

Gal 2:11
Ὅτε δὲ ἦλθεν Πέτρος (not the Nestle text: Ὅτε δὲ ἦλθεν Κηφᾶς)

Gal 2:12
ὅτε δὲ ἦλθον (not Carlson's text of D*: ὅτε δὲ ἦλθεν)

Presumably (based on ἦλθεν in manuscripts G and F, which used D* as an exemplar), there was a change from ἦλθεν to ἦλθον at the hand of a corrector. The line on the right side of the ο is a bit darker.

https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b ... .item.zoom

Re: Image of οἷς οὐδὲ (Gal 2:5) added to the original text* of Codex Claromontanus, D*

Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2023 7:56 am
by gryan
At Gal 1:19, ἕτερον starts a new line with a large extruding E to mark a fresh beginning, I guess.
Cf. the same large extruding E in the beginning of Gal Ch 2
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b ... /f500.item

D of Gal 1:19 reads
ἕτερον δὲ τῶν ἀποστόλων οὐκ εἶδον εἰ μὴ Ἰάκωβον τὸν ἀδελφὸν τοῦ
κυρίου.

In the next line we see another late correction.
The original (D*) had this
εἶδον οὐδένα

The altered (D) has this:
οὐκ+εἶδον οὐδένα

The Eastern text reads οὐκ εἶδον. The alteration (an attempt to assimilate the Eastern wording, I guess) creates a double negative in D.

https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b ... /f498.item

Re: Image of οἷς οὐδὲ (Gal 2:5) added to the original text* of Codex Claromontanus, D*

Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2023 8:42 am
by gryan
As in the Vulgate, the Old Latin, d, mistranslated the Greek the part of Gal 1:16 which reads εὐθέως οὐ προσανεθέμην (Immediately I did not consult):

Here is the Greek, D:
line 2: εὐθέως οὐ προσανεθέμην
line 3: σαρκὶ καὶ αἵματι
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b ... .item.zoom


Here is the Old Latin, d:
line 2: continuo non acquievi (Immediately I gave no rest)
line 3: carni et sanguini (to flesh and blood)
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b ... .item.zoom

Re: Misinterpretation of "We Did Yield in Submission" (Gal 2:5, Old Latin) by Irenaeus and Jerome

Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2023 9:05 am
by gryan
Gal 3:3 Nestle-Aland and Carlson
οὕτως ἀνόητοί ἐστε, ἐναρξάμενοι πνεύματι νῦν σαρκὶ ἐπιτελεῖσθε...

Var. Western branch Eastern branch EDS.
ἐπιτελεῖσθε d b ×vg P46 B A C 1739 Ψ Chrys 1611 Byz
ἐπιτελεῖσθαι D* F G 01 33 ×1175 1241S
? Marc

D* originally read ἐπιτελεῖσθαι, but the αι is marked over with the letter ε, thus conforming to the Eastern Text.

line 14: νῦν σαρκὶ ἐπιτελεῖσθαιε
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b ... .item.zoom

Re: Misinterpretation of "We Did Yield in Submission" (Gal 2:5, Old Latin, D* w/ images) by Irenaeus and Jerome

Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2023 9:57 am
by gryan
Gal 2:20 19
ἐγὼ γὰρ διὰ νόμου νόμῳ ἀπέθανον, ἵνα θεῷ ζήσω. Χριστῷ
συνεσταύρωμαι · ζῶ δὲ οὐκέτι ἐγώ, ζῇ δὲ ἐν ἐμοὶ Χριστός · ὃ δὲ νῦν
ζῶ ἐν σαρκί, ἐν πίστει ζῶ τῇ τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ Χριστοῦ τοῦ ἀγαπήσαντός με
καὶ παραδόντος ἑαυτὸν ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ.

Var. Western branch Eastern branch EDS.
τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ Χριστοῦ D* F G d P46 B SCC BW TTL
τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ ×vg 01 33 A C 1241S 1739 Ψ Chrys1611 Byz SBL NA
τοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ θεοῦ b
τοῦ θεοῦ 330
? Marc

D* had τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ Χριστοῦ
But in D we can see the different script which is
the hand of the corrector writing in τοῦ Υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ

Line 15: ὃ δὲ νῦν ζῶ ἐν σαρκί
Line 16: ἐν πίστει ζῶ τῇ τοῦ Υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b ... .item.zoom

Nevertheless, in the Old Latin, d, although garbled, has "the God and Christ" reading.

line 16: in fide vivo Dei et ...
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b ... .item.zoom

Re: Misinterpretation of "We Did Yield in Submission" (Gal 2:5, Old Latin, D* w/ images) by Irenaeus and Jerome

Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2023 1:00 pm
by gryan
Carlson's critical text of Gal 2:16 15

Ἡμεῖς φύσει Ἰουδαῖοι καὶ οὐκ ἐξ ἐθνῶν ἁμαρτωλοί · ¹⁶ εἰδότες δὲ
ὅτι οὐ δικαιοῦται ἄνθρωπος ἐξ ἔργων νόμου ἐὰν μὴ διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ
Χριστοῦ, καὶ ἡμεῖς εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν ἐπιστεύσαμεν ἵνα δικαιωθῶμεν
ἐκ πίστεως Χριστοῦ καὶ οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων νόμου, . . .
Var. Western branch Eastern branch EDS.

δέ D* F G d b ×vg B 01 C 1241S Chrys SCC SBL NAT
S BW WH T L
− P46 33 ×1175 A P 1739 Ψ 1611 Byz NAM

13 lines up from the bottom: εἰδότες δὲ
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b ... /f508.item

Carlson discusses the decision in this interview:
Q: In Galatians 2:16 you rejected the Byzantine non-inclusion of δε even though the Byzantine reading is supported by 1739, the Harklean group, and Papyrus 46. Do you still have the same view, and if so, could you briefly walk us through your reasoning for that?

Carlson: This is a very close case in my opinion. In favor of the inclusion of δέ we have D*FG d b vg; B; 01; C 1241S, and Chrysostom. For non-inclusion of δέ we have P46, 33 1175, AP, 1739 Ψ hark Byz. In terms of external evidence, aside from the Westerns (DFG), every other group is split, so there’s slight weight on the inclusion. Transcriptionally, the omission of the connective particle δέ looks harder than its inclusion, but as Royse has shown, the omission of such little words was fairly common in the earliest period. Intrinsically, i.e., in terms of what Paul meant, the best interpretation of the non-inclusion is the same as one with the inclusion of δέ, so that’s not much help. I ended up favoring the slight external evidence for the inclusion, thinking that its omission would have been more common in the early period. But it’s not a judgment I would bet the farm on.

https://www.thetextofthegospels.com/201 ... rlson.html

Re: Misinterpretation of "We Did Yield in Submission" (Gal 2:5, Latin d and Gk D* w/ images) by Irenaeus and Jerome

Posted: Thu Jun 22, 2023 4:25 am
by gryan
Gal 4:14 in Carlson's apparatus shows where the authorial text (τὸν πειρασμὸν ὑμῶν) was changed to τὸν πειρασμόν μου.

καὶ τὸν πειρασμὸν ὑμῶν μου τὸν ἐν τῇ σαρκί μου οὐκ ἐξουθενήσατε
τὸν πειρασμόν μου Ψ Chrys pesh hark 1611 Byz; C, P46
τὸν πειρασμὸν ὑμῶν 1739, A, 01 33, B, D* F G d b ×vg

He credits D* as originally having the authorial text, τὸν πειρασμὸν ὑμῶν, although in this image, the text of D clearly has the scribal alteration: τὸν πειρασμόν μου

https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b ... /f530.item

The final line reads: καὶ τὸν πειρασμὸν μου

I guess, based on F and G, and also based on the brighter lettering of μου, it is decided that μου is an alteration of the original ὑμῶν

In addition, the Latin d, on the next page translates not μου, but rather, the original ὑμῶν.

https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b ... /f531.item

The last line reads: et temtationem vestram