4 thoughts on “Did Ambrose use an Old Latin or Vulgate text in the pericope adulterae?”

1. Nice table, I have not checked any details but I appreciate that you take this evidence seriously. When you say that Ambrose agrees in 104 units with Vulgate the other OL MSS that you have included also goes with the Vulgate, right (the Vulgate is also a witness to the Old Latin). You have not said how you evaluate this data. Can you see that it is problematic to say that the Vulgate text is where the Latin version of the PA started?

   Reply

   • Dear Prof. Wasserman,
     thank you. I appreciate the discussion. As you noted, the colors emphasize the Vulgate to see how it works with my suggestion.

     “You have not said how you evaluate this data.”

     From the outset I have acknowledged the problem posed by Ambrose, because it presents a clear (though by no means insurmountable) difficulty with an otherwise plausible suggestion, supported by multiple instances of demonstrable fabrication in Jerome’s work.

     First of all, the textual evidence is ambiguous because we do not know the sequence. While it is generally a safe bet that continuous manuscripts precede writers’ citations, this is only because of the generally predictable continuity of the tradition. But in the PA we do not have continuity in the tradition, so we cannot depend on fifth-century manuscripts having ancient texts. This possibility is already strained by our only fourth-century Old Latin witness (3), which lacks the PA, and by the PA’s absence in at least one segment of the Old Latin attested by f l q, the segment from which the Vulgate derives. Moreover, a writer of Ambrose’s stature could be expected to influence the local textual tradition. Both 2 and 8 come from Ambrose’s region and are the two MSS with his peculiarities (caput in 2 and damnabo in 8). Local readers and scribes could be expected to know Ambrose’s work, since they likely contributed to its preservation.

     But, secondly, Ambrose’s parallels with the Old Latin are not incredibly impressive and most allow for alternative explanations. The two key parallels are the mention of Jesus’ head (in vv. 7, 8, and 10, shared with 2) and damnabo for condemnabo (in 8). The agreement with lapidauit (v. 10) looks more impressive than really is, since it probably assimilates to vv. 5 and 7, which the traditions all share. The rest of the agreements involve common words, like the addition of de ea (v. 5), hoc for haec (v. 6) prior for primus (v. 7), the name Iesus (v. 9), and et illa (v. 11). Then there are some morphological differences. None of these can establish Ambrose’s dependence on an existing Old Latin tradition. Nor is there any consistent pattern of agreement. It is just as likely that a reader checked Ambrose’s text and notated his readings in marginal commentary, which was incorporated ad hoc by later copyists.

     Thirdly, though, the biggest problem is Ambrose’s own independence in nearly every verse, especially the memorable pronouncement in v. 11. Even internally, his citations do not agree. So I would suggest that Ambrose is an inconclusive witness for either tradition. Whatever text he used, he appears to have cited loosely and for rhetorical effect. It is still plausible that Ambrose cited an early Vulgate gospel.

     “Can you see that it is problematic to say that the Vulgate text is where the Latin version of the PA started?”

     It is clear the situation is already rife with difficulties. My research on Jerome suggests that the kind of interpolation we find in the PA in John is well within the realm of plausibility and supported by a range of circumstantial historical data. To appreciate the historical aspect, a good starting point is Rufinus’ Apology and Oberhelman’s article. So it seems we are missing something crucial about Ambrose’s data.

     Reply

     • Of course one should take into account other Latin writers like Augustine and Pacian, the latter wrote in his Against the Novatians 20.2 about the adulteress which he found in the Gospel, “quam nemo damnarat.” The patristic data vs the Vulgate and more or less pure Old Latin MSS to me plainly suggests that the Vulgate is a later revision.

       Reply

       • Dear Prof. Wasserman,

         Thanks for the feedback (and push back) on the Jerome-PA idea. It’s too bad we don’t have dates on Pacian’s writings to better locate his citation/allusion.

         Pete

         Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.