NOVATIONS TEXT TINKERED WITH - PART 4
THE HISTORY OF THE TEXT OF THE DE TRINITATE:
Chapter III Page 8:
[SUBHEADING]: D. The History of the Transmission of the Text
“...The editio princeps is the edition published by Martin Mesnart in Paris in 1545, in which the work was attributed to Tertullian.[25] In addition to erroneously placing Novatian’s De Trinitate in a collection of the works of Tertullian, Mesnart apparently edited the text, “correcting” passages which he thought were heterodox, or in which the Latin seemed awkward to him. The edition also contained errors, such as omissions due to homoioteleuton.[26] In 1550, Sigismond Gelenius, working from earlier manuscripts which are now lost, corrected the errors of Mesnart’s edition and restored the edited sections.[27] For our purposes it will suffice to give an example of a theological change made by Mesnart, and compare it to the restored text as preserved by Gelenius. In 16.3 of the text, Mesnart’s edition has:
(CORRUPTED LATIN TEXT): “...Sed si a Christo accepit quae nuntiet, non est homo tantum Christus, a quo accepit paracletus deus non minor, quoniam nec paracletus a Christo acciperet nisi Deus Christus esset: Christus ergo se Deum esse hoc ipso probat, quod ab eo accepit paracletus quae nuntiat, ut testimonium Christi divinitatis grande sit, dum ab illo paracletus sumit quae ceteris tradit...”
(AUTHORS TRANSLATION): “...But if He receives what He would announce from Christ, Christ is not only a man, [the one] from whom the Helper receives is no less divine, since the Helper would not receive from Christ unless Christ is God: therefore this proves Christ Himself, from whom the Helper receives what He would announce, to be God also, so that
[this] would be a great testimony to the divinity of Christ, that from Him the Helper obtains what He gives to others...”
For the same passage, Gelenius’ corrected text reads:
(CORRECTED LATIN TEXT): “...Sed si a Christo accepit quae nuntiet, maior ergo iam paracleto Christus est, quoniam nec paracletus a Christo acciperet, nisi minor Christo esset. Minor autem Christo paracletus Christum etiam Deum esse hoc ipso probat, a quo accepit quae nuntiat, ut testimonium Christi divinitatis grande sit, dum minor Christo
paracletus repertus ab illo sumit quae ceteris tradit...”[28]
(AUTHORS TRANSLATION): “...But if He receives what He would announce from Christ, then Christ is greater than the Helper, since the Helper would not receive from Christ unless He were less than Christ. But the Helper [is] less than Christ, which proves Christ Himself, from whom He receives what He would announce, to be God also, so that [this] would be a great testimony to the divinity of Christ, that the Helper is discovered [to be] less than Christ, from whom He obtains what He gives to others...”
From the omitted parts which I have underlined, it is clear that Mesnart edited out those phrases which make the Spirit subordinate to the Son, thereby making the Trinity less hierarchical and more consistent with the western orthodoxy of his time. Gelenius corrected the text, but he still attributed the work as a whole to Tertullian.[29] The first extant edition to correctly assign authorship to Novatian is that of Jacques de Paméle (Pamelius), in 1579. It was Pamelius who added the chapter divisions.[30] Pamelius noted that the manuscripts he was working with confirmed Gelenius’ corrections of the text, and allowed him to make further corrections.[31] Diercks counts corrections of almost 80 errors or lacunae, some common to Mesnart and Gelenius, others only in Gelenius’ edition.[32] Fausset notes that in 31.10-12, Pamelius restored the following passage, which also seemto have been removed in the earlier editions for theological reasons:[33]
(CORRECTED LATIN TEXT): “...Si inuisibilis fuisset, cum inuisibili collatus par expressus duos inuisibiles ostendisset et ideo duos comprobasset et deos. Si incomprehensibilis, si et cetera quaecumque sunt Patris, merito, dicimus, duorum deorum quam isti confingunt controuersiam suscitasset. Nunc autem quicquid est non ex se est, quia nec innatus est...”
(AUTHORS TRANSLATION): “...If He had been invisible, He would have been compared with the invisible one, [and would] have been described [as] equal. He would have shown two invisible beings and for that reason He would also have demonstrated [the existence of] two Gods. If [He were] incomprehensible, or anything else that is rightfully of the Father, [then] we could say that He had stirred up the argument of two Gods which those [heretics] fabricate. But as it is, whatever He is, He is not from Himself, because He is not unborn...”
Again, to soften the subordination within the Trinity (which we will discuss at length later), the passage above was omitted, and the phrase:
(CORRUPTED LATIN TEXT): “...Christus autem non innatus est...”
(AUTHORS TRANSLATION): “...On the other hand, Christ is not unborn...”
was inserted in its place.[34] Other editions include that of E. Welchman in 1724, and J. Jackson in 1728. Welchman reordered some chapters which had apparently gotten out of order, and Jackson made a few more corrections, though both also confuse some issues and add their own errors at times. Others had published editions of the text as well, attempting to make further corrections and adding commentary; however, by this time the manuscripts were lost and all future editions were based on the ones mentioned above. Therefore the Pamelius edition serves as the textus receptus.[35] Finally, Giles Pelland, following Pierre Petitmengin, has reconstructed an alternate ending to that found in the textus receptus of Pamelius. It seems that Pamelius may have failed to completely restore the original text, or may himself have changed a few lines that sounded too subordinationist for his taste. Pamelius’ text makes the return of divine authority to the Father at Christ’s glorification a result of the “sharing of substance,” while the alternate text has it as a product of the “subordination of the Son.” Pelland maintains that this is more consistent with Novatian’s thought in the rest of the treatise, and therefore must be the original wording.[36] The following is a comparison of the textus receptus with Pelland’s reconstruction of De Trinitate 31.18-20:
[PAMELIUS’ EDITION, THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS]: “...Cuius sic diuinitas traditur, ut non aut dissonantia aut inaequalitate diuinitatis duos deos reddidisse uideatur. Subiectis enim ei quasi Filio omnibus rebus a Patre, dum ipse cum his quae illi subiecta sunt Patri suo subicitur, Patris quidem sui Filius probatur, ceterorum autem et Dominus et Deus esse reperitur. Ex quo dum huic qui est Deus omnia substrata traduntur et cuncta sibi subiecta Filius accepta refert Patri, totam diuinitatis auctoritatem rursus Patri remittit. Vnde unus Deus ostenditur uerus et aeternus Pater, a quo solo haec uis diuinitatis emissa, etiam in Filium tradita et directa, rursum per substantiae communionem ad Patrem reuoluitur...”
(AUTHORS TRANSLATION): “...Thus [the Father’s] divinity is communicated, so that neither disagreement nor imbalance [within] the Divine would seem to cause two Gods to exist. For since all things have been subordinated by the Father to Him, as the Son, while He Himself is subordinated to His own Father with these things which are subordinate to Him, He is indeed demonstrated [to be] the Son of His Father, but He is discovered to be both Lord and God of everything else. Therefore, since all subjected things are handed over to this one who is God, and everything received [which is] subordinate to Him, He gives back to the Father, He defers all divine authority back again to the Father. From this, the true and eternal Father is shown [to be] the one God, the divine power having been sent out from Him alone, and communicated and extended in the Son, it has been reverted back to the Father again through the sharing of substance...”
[PELLAND’S RECONSTRUCTION]: “...Cuius sic diuinitas traditur, ut non aut dissonantia aut inaequalitate diuinitatis duos deos reddidisse uideatur. Subiectis enim ei quasi Filio
omnibus rebus a Patre, dum ipse cum his quae illi subiecta sunt Patri suo subicitur, Patris quidem sui Filius et minister probatur, ceterorum autem et Dominus et Deus esse reperitur. Ex quo dum huic qui est Deus omnia substrata traduntur hic autem cum illis quae illi subiecta sunt subiciens se Patri, totam diuinitatis auctoritatem rursus ex subiectione sui Patri remittit. Vnus Deus ostenditur uerus et aeternus Pater, a quo solo haec uis diuinitatis emissa, etiam in Filium tradita et directa, rursum per subiectionem Filii ad Patrem reuoluitur...”
(AUTHORS TRANSLATION): “...Thus [the Father’s] divinity is communicated, so that neither disagreement nor imbalance [within] the Divine would seem to cause two Gods to exist. For since all things have been subordinated by the Father to Him, as the Son, while He Himself is subordinated to His own Father with these things which are subordinate to Him, He is indeed demonstrated [to be] the Son and servant of His Father, but He is discovered to be both Lord and God of everything else. Therefore, since all subjected things are handed over to this one who is God, yet He is subordinate to the Father with those things which are subject to Him, He defers all divine authority back again to the Father because of His subordination. From this, the true and eternal Father is shown [to
be] the one God, the divine power having been sent out from Him alone, and communicated and extended in the Son, it has been reverted back to the Father again through the subordination of the Son...”[37] - (Chapter III, Pages 8-15, “Between Two Thieves”The Christology of Novatian as “Dynamic Subordination,” Influenced by His Historical Context, and His New Testament Interpretation. By James Leonard Papandrea Ph.D. Dissertation, 1998, Northwestern University.)
[FOOTNOTE 21]: G. F. Diercks, introduction to Nouatiani Opera, Corpus Christianorum Series Latina, vol. 4, ed. G. F. Diercks (Turnholt: Typographi Brepols Editores Pontificii, 1972), 2, esp. n. 2. There is one extant fragment in the codex Casinensis 384, which contains 36 words from chapter 18 of the De Trinitate.
[FOOTNOTE 22]: Jerome Aduersus Rufinum 2.19. See also DeSimone, The Treatise of Novatian the Roman Presbyter on the Trinity: A Study of the Text and Doctrine, 37.
[FOOTNOTE 23]: Jerome Aduersus Rufinum 2.19; De Viribus Illustribus 70.
[FOOTNOTE 24]: Jerome Aduersus Rufinum 2.19. See also Moore, 17. This assumes that the document which Jerome refers to is in fact Novatian’s De Trinitate, and not Tertullian’s Aduersus Praxean, as Quarry had argued. See above, n. 5, 7.
[FOOTNOTE 25]: Diercks, “Novatien et son temps,” 2. See also Mohrmann, “Les origines de la latinité chrétienne à Rome,” 163-164, and DeSimone, The Treatise of Novatian the Roman Presbyter on the Trinity: A Study of the Text and Doctrine, 49-52.
[FOOTNOTE 26]: Diercks, introduction to Nouatiani Opera, 3-4, n. 11.
[FOOTNOTE 27]: Diercks, “Novatien et son temps,” 2-3. See also Diercks, introduction to Novatiani Opera 4; and Weyer, Novatianus, “De Trinitate”: Über den dreifaltigen Gott, 16, n. 50. The manuscripts in question apparently belonged to a corpus Corbeiense.
[FOOTNOTE 28]: Diercks, introduction to Nouatiani Opera, 3-4, (emphasis mine).
[FOOTNOTE 29]: Diercks, “Note sur le traite De Trinitate de Novatien,” Sacris Erudi 19 (1969-1970), 27, n. 4.
[FOOTNOTE 30]: Fausset, xxv.
[FOOTNOTE 31]: Diercks, introduction to Nouatiani Opera, 4-5, n. 13. In addition to the manuscripts available to Mesnart and Gelenius, Pamelius mentions a codex Anglicus. See also DeSimone, The Treatise of Novatian the Roman Presbyter on the Trinity: A Study of the Text and Doctrine,
[FOOTNOTE 32]: Diercks, introduction to Nouatiani Opera, 5, n. 22-23.
[FOOTNOTE 33]: Fausset, xxv-xxvi, 119, n.16. See also DeSimone, The Treatise of Novatian the Roman Presbyter on the Trinity: A Study of the Text and Doctrine, 98.
[FOOTNOTE 34]: Fausset, xxv-xxvi, 119, n.16.
[FOOTNOTE 35]: Diercks, introduction to Nouatiani Opera, 5. Editions since Migne include those of Fausset (1909), Weyer (1962), and Diercks, (1972). Cf. Weyer, Novatianus, “De Trinitate”: Über den dreifaltigen Gott, 18, where Weyer criticizes Fausset’s edition as incomplete and inaccurate. Diercks’ text in vol. 4 of the Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina is the basis for my translation, which is included below as Appendix A.
[FOOTNOTE 36]: Giles Pelland, “Un passage difficile de Novatien sur I Cor. 15:27-28,” Gregorianum 66 (1985): 44-46. See also Pierre Petitmengin, “Ce que Pamèle connaissait de codex Johannis Clementis,” Revue des études augustiniennes 21 (1975): 266-272. Diercks follows Pamelius’s text for the ending of his edition, and this review of Diercks’ edition by Petitmengin includes notes on the manuscript behind the reconstructed text, codex Ioannis Clementis, which Welchman used to correct Pamelius’ text, but which he also had edited for theological reasons. I include a translation of Pelland’s reconstructed alternate ending as Appendix B.
[FOOTNOTE 37]: The translation is mine. The bold type and underlining for emphasis are also mine. Bold type represents an addition to Pamelius’ text, underlined text represents a replacement.
IMPORTANT NOTE: So in the end, even the text that the Author and others use for his reconstruction of what was thought by THEM to be the original text, which was used also by the Author for his new translation, he has to admitt that Pamelius Textus Receptus cannot be trusted as being what the original actually said (because that is now lost) and being fully un-biased towards the Trinity.
To be continued.
