LIMITACIONES Y RESTRICCIONES

From this study of adinventio in the text of Jeremiah, Ezekiel and the Minor

Prophets it has become clear that there is significant lexical variation in the Latin textual tradition.

The Latin lexical variation apparent in both Jeremiah and Ezekiel is characterised by a three-pronged tradition. This reality does not align well with the duopoly of the African and European elements attested in the Latin New Testament textual tradition and justifies our decision not to engage with this theory. The fact that the core elements of these threepronged traditions is different in Jeremiah and

Ezekiel also supports our decision to treat these books (relatively) independently. In Jeremiah we find variation in the Latin text most often characterised by the three-fold variants of adinventio, cogitatio and studium (Jeremiah 4:4, 17:10, 23:2

and 23:22). That this variation is not apparent in the extant Greek textual tradition is notable. When we turn to Ezekiel we continue to find variation associated with

adinventio but the situation becomes more opaque as the influence of the Greek

variant readings becomes more dominant. In Ezekiel the Vulgate text often follows a Greek Version (or versions) different from Ziegler’s LXX. While these versions are extant for some of Ezekiel there are several verses where it is likely that the Vulgate text of Jerome is the only remaining witness to these alternative Greek textual traditions.

In regard to the older Latin text in Ezekiel the situation becomes even more unclear as we find ourselves witnessing two (or more?) textual traditions attested by the LXX text of Jerome, Comm. Ezech. and the older manuscript tradition

preserved in the fragmentary Fr. Sang, Fr. Turic and Fr. Weing. Only in Ezekiel

attesting studium.55 It is unclear whether the almost universal appearance of adinventio in the Latin LXX text of Jerome, Comm. Ezech. is inspired by an older

Latin textual tradition or is the result of Jerome’s own translation of the Greek LXX text of Ezekiel. In the Minor Prophets the complete opposite is apparent. While Jerome alternates between the use of adinventio in his Vulgate and LXX

Latin text we invariably find the reading of adinventio supported by the older Latin

manuscript tradition.56

From this discussion it would seem that Jerome’s use of adinventio and his

relationship with the underlying e0pith/deuma is different from book to book. This book specific variation would also seem to be apparent in the text of the older Latin manuscript tradition.

In Ezekiel and the Minor Prophets we benefit greatly from the fact that Jerome in his Commentaries of these texts often provided a full and identified Latin LXX text. This situation is very different from that found in Jerome’s Commentary on Jeremiah where the only indication of variation is the occasional sive within the

statement of Jerome’s Vulgate lemma.

In this discussion we have encountered only an occasional reference to Cyprian, Tertullian and other representatives of the older Latin patristic (e.g. Tyconius, Lactantius) tradition. It is interesting to note that we find affectio and/or its

cognates attested in Cyprian and Lactantius in Jeremiah 25:5, and in Tertullian in Ezekiel 8:15. While there may be some doubt about the association of these readings with the proffered author, this use of affectio certainly recalls

Augustine’s listing of this term in his passage on Ps 105:39. At this point it is also interesting to note the single appearance of voluptas in Jerome’s Commentary on

Micah 3:4 (T22:3). That voluptas appears in tandem with studium in this passage

(the LXX reading of adinventio has also been noted previously by Jerome) leads

55 _{Another posited alignment of the Latin LXX of Jerome and the manuscript tradition may be}

found in Ezekiel 20:392 (Jerome, Comm. Ezech. 6 (197A) LXX studiis). However, for this verse there is no surviving manuscript evidence.

56 _{The older Latin manuscript tradition is attested intermittently by}

Fr. Sang.,Fr. Weing., and Cod. Wirc.

us to wonder whether Jerome is demonstrating his knowledge of the lexical equivalents of e0pith/deuma in a way not dissimilar to that found in Augustine.

This study has certainly hinted at an association between Jerome and the use of

adinventio. However, we can not say whether the presence of this word is

indicative of Hieronymian revision. Indeed in some books, the evidence suggests that adinventio may also be representative of a pre-Hieronymian Latin textual

tradition. Despite this, it would seem certain that, for Jerome, there is a close link between adinventio and e0pith/deuma.We must not assume, however, that

adinventio is the only word associated with e0pith/deuma in the Hieronymian text.

We have also witnessed a close relationship, particularly in the older Latin manuscript tradition, between studium and e0pith/deuma. That there is also an association between e0nqu/mhma and cogitatio, instead of e0pith/deuma, is less certain.

In Jeremiah and Ezekiel adinventio is closely associated with the text of

Jerome.57 This situation is reversed in the Minor Prophets where we find

adinventio more closely aligned with the older Latin manuscript tradition. Given

that the support for adinventio in the manuscript tradition of the Minor Prophets

reflects, at different times, the adinventio of either Jerome’s Vulgate or his Latin

LXX text it is unlikely that the presence of this word is due to influence solely from the Vulgate. We are thus left with the impression that studium in Ezekiel and adinventio in the Minor Prophets (and cogitiatio in Jeremiah?) reflect a textual

tradition older than Jerome.

After this initial foray into the Latin lexical variation of the Jewish Greek Bible we have managed to establish that the variation apparent in the Latin text of the Jewish Greek Bible does not seem to be attributable to any one factor. Indeed, the influence of the Greek versions, variant LXX manuscripts and inner-Latin lexical influences (lexical preference and/or theological motivations) all seem to

57

Adinventio is found only in Jeremiah 4:4 in the older Latin manuscript traditions of both

Jeremiah and Ezechiel. It should be noted, however, that there are several readings in Jeremiah, in particular, where there is no surviving older Latin manuscript tradition.

be responsible to some degree or other for this variation. It is notable that this variation has been deliberately introduced into the text and that there is no evidence for accidental change. That this variation also displays a specific slot- like character is also apparent from this examination.

This analysis of adinventio and its lexical equivalents in Jeremiah, Ezekiel and

the Minor Prophets is a solid base providing useful points of comparison for our subsequent examinations of adinventio and lexical variation in the text of Psalms

Chapter Three: An Examination of Adinventio and its Lexical