« PreviousContinue »
ON THE FORGED GREEK ENDING OF THE SHEPHERD
The first point to be noticed about this extraordinary document is that it gives us far too much Greek. The portion which corresponds to it in the Old Latin Version occupies 136 lines in Dressel's edition. Now taking the 136 lines of Latin immediately preceding this portion, we find that they represent 154 lines of the Greek original as printed in Hilgenfeld's latest edition. We should accordingly expect that this new ending would also take
about 154 lines. Instead of this it occupies 210 lines: that is to say, it presents us with one-third more Greek than our knowledge of the preceding passage would have led us to anticipate.
This excess however is easily explained when we observe the method which Simonides adopts. His loose and pompous paraphrase of the Old Latin Version recalls the liberal translation' of the New Testament with freedom, spirit and elegance', published by Harwood in 1768, in which the Parable of the Prodigal Son is made to commence with the words: 'a gentleman of splendid family and opulent fortune had two sons'. The passage
which I have selected for investigation offers special advantages, because in dealing with it we have not only the testimony of the two Latin Versions and the Aethiopic Version to guide us, but also an unacknowledged quotation of it in Greek in the Homilies of Antiochus, a monk of the seventh century. This passage is Sim. ix. 31. 4–6; and the parallel passage in Antiochus is Hom. cxxii. (Migne, vol. 89, p. 1816 A).
1. Let us begin by setting the Versions side by side in the opening clause, that we may see what kind of Greek original is to be expected.
(vulg. de vobis :) Vet. Lat. ut dominus pecorum gaudeat de his : gaudebit autem
si omnia invenerit sana. (sin autem... Pal. ut si dominus pecorum venerit, gaudeat, si pecora sua
integra invenerit. [si enim... Aeth. quando venerit dominus ovium, gaudebit de vobis et
exsultabit, sed tantum si omnia sana invenerit, nec
ullus e vobis interciderit. [vae vobis, pastores... In comparing with this the Greek of Antiochus we must note that he has worked the quotation up to complete a sentence of his own, in which the shepherd' and 'the sheep' have been previously mentioned, though they have not been in the Hermas. Antioch. ίνα όταν έλθη ο κύριος των προβάτων, χαρη επ' αυτό και
επί τους προβάτοις ευφρανθή χαρήσεται δε εαν πάντα
υγιή ευρεθη, και μη διαπεπτωκότα τινα εξ αυτών. He continues thus : έαν δε ευρεθή τινα εξ αυτών διαπεπτωκότα.
Here the similarity of the two clauses, one of which ends with διαπεπτωκότα τινα εξ αυτών, and the other with τινα εξ αυτών διαπεπTWKóta, caused the former to be omitted in the two Latin Versions, and the latter in the Aethiopic Version.
The probable reading of the original seems to be χαρη επ' αυτούς, rather than $' yuîv. The second person was not unlikely to be
¢¢ introduced, as in fact the Aethiopic has introduced it in 'vae vobis, pastores.'
It is now time to compare with all this the Greek text of Simonides:
ίνα και ο ποιμήν τούτων χαρίσηται υμίν, ει για πάντα ταύτα τα απολωλότα δέξεται πρόβατα εν τω λιμάνι της ζωής νεμόμενα τον λόγον του θεού της ζωής της αιωνίου.
Here χαρίσηται υμίν cannot be the equivalent of χαρή εφ' υμίν: at least not in ancient Greek. • The meadow of life' is a strange expression. vyla and Aywy are wrong forms. And it is obvious that the sentence in this amplified form can never have been the original of the Versions which we have considered. We are thus led to expect that yapíonrai vuî is a mistranslation of the common reading of the Vet. Lat. 'gaudeat de vobis', and the rest of the
2. Our suspicion will be confirmed by what follows:
(vulg. pecus aliquod ex talibus invenerit dissipatum] Vet Lat. sin autem aliqua ex his dissipata invenerit, vae erit
pastoribus. Pal. si enim aut aliqua pecora a pastoribus dissipata, [aut
ipsos pastores... Aeth. ..nec ullus e vobis interciderit.] vae vobis, pastores...
Both the Palatine Latin and the Aethiopic Versions are inaccurate here, and the Greek is no doubt preserved by Antiochus in close correspondence with the true reading of the Old Latin : Antioch. έαν δε ευρεθή τινα εξ αυτών διαπεπτωκότα, ουαί τούς ποιμέσιν
Now hear Simonides:
και γαρ ει πρόβατόν τι έκ της όλης ποίμνης αποπλανηθή, λύπη έσεται τούς ποιμέσι μεγάλη.
The expression mpóßatóv ti ék recalls the 'pecus aliquod ex talibus' of the common reading of the Old Latin. Elsewhere (Sim. vi. 1. 6) Hermas uses Toluviov, not toluvn. So too in the very next clause, if Antiochus quotes him correctly : though Antiochus himself uses toiuen a little below when his quotation is finished. both words are found in the New Testament, not much stress can be laid on this divergence. More striking is the use of lúan meyaan for ovai, to which there is no parallel in the Shepherd. We may compare Rom. ix. 2, λύπη μοί έστιν μεγάλη. The form έσεται is also to be noted. A modern Greek, who never uses the future forms in conversation, might be the more easily guilty of this mistake. 3. Still further evidence is forthcoming as we proceed :
(vulg. om. reperti] Vet. Lat. quodsi ipsi pastores dissipati reperti fuerint, quid re
(vulg. om. his] spondebunt ei pro pecoribus his ? Pal. aut ipsos pastores corruptos invenerit dominus, quid ei
respondebitur? Aeth. si autem ipsi pastores dicunt possessori gregis [ab ovibus
se prostratos... There is a quotation, as it appears, of the Vet. Lat. of this clause in the work ! de aleatoribus' ascribed to Cyprian : but the text of it is uncertain and the variants throw no light on the matter in hand:
Antioch. έαν δε και αυτοί οι ποιμένες ευρεθώσιν διαπεπτωκότες,
τί έρoύσιν τώ δεσπότη του ποιμνίου και He continues ότι από των προβάτων διέπεσαν; which shews that the Aethiopic Translator must have read ei épowolv, and then have considerably modified the former part of the sentence.
Simonides reads :
ει δε και οι ποιμένες αυτοί διασπαρώσι, τίνα λόγον δώσουσιν ουτοι το κυρίω υπέρ των προβάτων;
Now assuming for the moment that this is a translation from the Latin, we may note :
(1) that his representation of 'pro pecoribus', which has no support from the other Versions or Antiochus, points to the Vet. Lat, as the basis of his work.
(2) that he had not the full readings “reperti' and `his', the former of which is confirmed by Antiochus : and hence he must have used the editio vulgata of the Vet. Lat.
(3) that he had twice tried to translate dissipari', once by αποπλανάσθαι, and a second time by διασπαρηναι; whereas Antiochus has dlategelv, a rare but good word, which no translator would have guessed at, and which seems not to be in use in Modern Greek.
4. The clause which follows will do nothing to disturb our supposition. Vet. Lat. numquid dicent a pecore se vexatos ? non credetur illis. Pal. numquid pastores dicturi sunt a pecoribus se esse vexatos?
quod non creditur illis. Aeth. si autem ipsi pastores dicent possessori gregis, ab ovibus
se prostratos esse, non creditur. Antioch. ότι από των προβάτων διέπεσαν; ου πιστευθήσονται.
The terseness of Antiochus commends itself as original: and his text alone could explain the misreading of the Aethiopic version. With it contrast the clumsy phrasing of Simonides :
έρούσιν άρα ως υπό των προβάτων απεβλήθησαν και άλλ' ουδέποτε πιστευθήσονται ούτοι υπό του κυρίου των ανθρώπων.
He has failed again to find διαπεσείν, and the phrase ο κύριος των