Vetus Latina (Old Latin) for "NT" New Testament

[TYA]

I'm grateful to see a product for "VETUS LATINA (OT)" but what about the "NT"?  It would be nice to have access to the "Old Latin" materials for "NT" research.

Edited April 19, 2020 by TYA

[Fabian]

+1 

 

http://www.vetuslatina.org they also partnered with the University of Birmingham to release the texts. And the university of Birmingham has also more texts for the Accordance Library.

Edited April 19, 2020 by Fabian

[TYA]

Has anyone digitized Codex Vercellensis or Bobiensis (apparently the earliest manuscripts of the "Old Latin," so that they can be imported into Accordance?

[Fabian]

May you ask https://erzabtei-beuron.de/kloster/kultur/vetus/index.html 

[TYA]

 

 

May you ask https://erzabtei-beu...tus/index.html 

 

The link is broken.

[Fabian]

https://www.erzabtei-beuron.de/kloster/kultur/vetus/index.html

[TYA]

Okay, now I see the link, but don't understand what you are trying to point me to.  I'm wondering if anybody has *digitized* the Old Latin.  Am I missing something here?

[Fabian]

Hello TYA I thought you can ask them. 

 

But I see now on http://bibleworks.oldinthenew.org/?page_id=138you have both and more. It would be good if OakTree asks the people who made Tools for BW if they can have the texts so it can be done to Accordance. Just saying. 

[jlm]

Having downloaded the BW databases, I can report that the transcriptions of Vercellensis and Veronensis are from a 1749 edition. Bobbiensis is from an 1886 Oxford edition. This last has critical notes (in Latin, of course) indicating corrections and other textual characteristics. Since the printed sources are in the public domain, and transcription is not a creative process, I would take it that the resulting databases are also in the public domain. There is a 1914 edition of Vercellensis and a 1904 edition of Veronensis, which might have been better to transcribe.

 

I think the 1749 texts are associated with the edition on which the Vetus Latina OT resource for Accordance is based. Compiling all the patristic and MS evidence for an edition of the Vetus Latina (which is not a single translation) is such a monumental task that two centuries passed before a new attempt was begun, and it remains to be seen whether or not they finish before the third centenary of the 1749 edition.

 

The University of Birmingham has "electronic transcriptions of Old Latin manuscripts and patristic evidence for Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians and Galatians" on the COMPAUL website (works well with Firefox, not so well with Safari). These are in XML, so they could be turned into User Texts by an automatic process, although this would produce dozens of Accordance resources. For the Gospel of John, they have a site that will show the MSS in parallel, but I didn't see an easy way to download a transcription.

Edited April 21, 2020 by jlm

[TYA]

 

 

1749 edition. Bobbiensis is from an 1886 Oxford edition. ... There is a 1914 edition of Vercellensis and a 1904 edition of Veronensis, which might have been better to transcribe.

 

Can you explain, in short, what is the difference between these "editions"?  Aren't Vercellensis and Veronensis single manuscripts?  If  they were transcribed accurately at some point, then what would be the point of doing it again?  What is meant by "edition" in this context?

[jlm]

Can you explain, in short, what is the difference between these "editions"?  Aren't Vercellensis and Veronensis single manuscripts?  If  they were transcribed accurately at some point, then what would be the point of doing it again?  What is meant by "edition" in this context?

Yes, they are single manuscripts, but sometimes words in manuscripts are unclear. It's also possible that there were errors in transcription or in typesetting. The Vercelli MS had already deteriorated in the 1700s to the the point of being unreadable in some places, and difficult to read in others. The introduction to the 1914 edition discusses the two editions printed in 1748 and 1749 and says, "A comparison of these two printed editions reveals a considerable number of verbal differences and it is obviously of importance to be able to determine which of the two readings is correct. In some, if not in most cases, this has happily been possible, and the true reading according to the Ms. for these variants is here printed" (p. XI). The editor of the 1914 edition was using a magnifying glass and taking his time with letters that were hard to read. Today ultraviolet light could be used, but the manuscript is also a century older.

[TYA]

Terrific; thanks for this explanation.  I've been spoiled by the uniformity and clarity of Peshitta (Syriac) manuscripts

Edited April 21, 2020 by TYA

[Septuagint]

I agree to add the NT from volume 3 of Bibliorum Sacrorum Latinae Antiquae by Sabatier.  Usually it is the NT which is paid the majority of the attention and nice to see the OT get the attention first.  However, the Vetus Latina NT gives an insight into the text used two centuries prior to the time that the church was instituionalized.