A paper presented at the International Patristics Conference in Oxford, August 2007. It investigates the alterations to biblical citations made by Church Fathers consistent with their quoting from memory, and identifies features typical of "flattening" the scriptural text

Houghton, H.A.G.

English

University of Birmingham Research Archive, E-prints Repository

* The author is a Research Fellow on the Vetus Latina Iohannes project funded by the Arts 
and Humanities Research Council.
1 Patristic citations have been taken from the Vetus Latina Database, a card index available 
for consultation at the Vetus Latina-Institut in Beuron and online at http://www.brepolis.net/vld. 
An updated version of this database is planned as part of the new edition of the Vetus Latina 
‘Flattening’ in Latin Biblical Citations
Hugh A.G. HougHton, Birmingham*
One of the problems with using patristic citations for biblical textual criticism is 
the difficulty of determining the accuracy with which a Father cites Scripture. For 
‘primary’ citations, use of a biblical codex is explicit or probable. Other ‘secondary’ 
citations, however, have no such indication: some may have been drawn from a 
manuscript, but the majority are likely to have been made from memory in keeping 
with ancient practice. This is not to say that they are without value for the text of 
Scripture, but they require careful analysis before they can be used in this way.
Certain alterations are characteristic of citations made from memory. This 
process, which may be described as ‘flattening’, does not simply consist of 
removing references to the original context but may also involve a more active 
reshaping of the biblical text employing rhetorical techniques. Most of these 
variations were probably not introduced deliberately: a flattened form is shorter, 
easier to memorise and concentrates on a single aspect of the biblical text, the 
more clearly to illustrate an argument. The nature of this practice means that 
the same types of variation will be found independently in different authors 
and across different languages. The occurrence of an identical text in two or 
more Fathers is not necessarily an indication of mutual dependence or shared 
reliance on a third source, although this will be true in certain cases. 
It is possible to identify instances of flattening by comparing the patristic cita-
tion with the text transmitted in biblical exemplars. In the case of the early Latin 
Fathers, these are the handful of surviving Old Latin versions as well as the wit-
nesses to the later Vulgate tradition. As gospel manuscripts contain a continuous 
text they are unlikely to have been influenced by flattening, although they may 
be subject to other types of alteration during the copying process. Given the 
scarcity of Old Latin witnesses, however, patristic citations may include readings 
which were present in a version which is no longer extant. The seven examples 
which follow from the Gospel according to John will illustrate how biblical 
references in the Church Fathers may be analysed with particular reference to 
the concept of flattening. They come from a variety of authors and works, in 
order to show the prevalence of this phenomenon throughout the tradition.1
Studia Patristica XLV, 271-276.
© Peeters Publishers, 2010.
272 H.A.g. HougHton
Iohannes currently in preparation at the University of Birmingham, to be hosted on the website 
http://www.iohannes.com. In this paper, Old Latin manuscripts are cited from Adolf Jülicher, 
with Walter Matzkow and Kurt Aland (eds.), Itala. IV. Johannes-Evangelium (Berlin, 1963). 
The editorial text of the Stuttgart Vulgate (Robert Weber, Roger Gryson, et al. [eds.], Biblia 
Sacra Iuxta Vulgatam Versionem [editio quartam emendatam] [Stuttgart, 1994]) has been taken 
as representative of the Vulgate, with punctuation added. 
2 For more on Augustine’s citation technique in this work and other writings, see Hugh 
A.G. Houghton, Augustine’s Text of John: Patristic Citations and Latin Gospel Manuscripts 
(Oxford, 2008).
1) John 10:18; Ambrose, De fide 2.25 (CV 78, 65):
potestatem habeo ponendi animam meam et potestatem habeo sumendi eam. nullus 
eam tollit a me, sed ego a memetipso pono eam.
Stuttgart Vulgate:
nemo tollit eam a me, sed ego pono eam a meipso. potestatem habeo ponendi eam, et 
potestatem habeo iterum sumendi eam. hoc mandatum accepi a patre meo.
Ambrose has reversed the order of the two phrases he cites and replaced the 
first pronoun with the object, animam meam, from the previous verse. Both 
alterations enable the verse to be quoted out of context, with the key sentence 
fronted for emphasis. There is no example of this re-ordering of the verse in 
biblical manuscripts; the one instance of animam meam after ponendi, in the 
Old Latin Codex Aureus, was later corrected. By contrast, both Ambrose’s 
other citations of John 10:17-8 in this work (De fide 4.120 and 5.131) have the 
regular pronouns and word-order. It is possible that the other variants nullus 
and memetipso represent traces of an Old Latin text (memetipso occurs here in 
Codex Vercellensis), although they do not appear in the two later references. 
Several other Fathers cite similar forms of this verse to Ambrose, including 
Augustine (Sermo 52.13, 299A.10; Tractatus 8.10.12, 11.2.31, 37.9.28 etc.), Cerea-
lis (Disputatio 6), Petrus Chrysologus (Sermo 37.3, 40.3 etc.) and the Contra 
Varimadum of Ps.-Vigilius.
2)  John 8:24b; Augustine, Tractatus in Iohannis euangelium 38.7-8 (CChr.SL 36, 
341-2).
The process of flattening can often be traced in Augustine’s sermons, recorded 
verbatim by stenographers. When delivering his commentary on John to the 
congregation at Hippo, he would read the initial citation from his codex (an 
early copy of the Vulgate) but rely on memory as he developed his exposition.2 
The first occurrence of John 8:24b appears as: 
si enim non credideritis quia ego sum, moriemini in peccatis uestris.
Three sentences later, he gives the whole line again, but without enim. The 
omission of the connective is typical of flattening, since the text is now being 
 ‘Flattening’ in Latin Biblical Citations 273
3 Augustine’s treatment of John 5:22 in Tractatus in Iohannis euangelium 21.12ff. offers an 
almost identical example: the initial citation of neque enim pater iudicat quemquam then 
becomes non enim pater iudicat quemquam a few lines later, before reaching his preferred form 
pater non iudicat quemquam which appears in all subsequent citations.
4 See, amongst others, Ambrose, De fide 5.149 and In Lucam 8.9; Augustine, De diuersis 
quaestionibus 38.8; id., Sermo 112A.11 etc.; Jerome, Commentariolus in Psalmos 15; Maxentius, 
Aduersus Hormisdam 40; Sedulius Scottus, In Matthaeum 1.1. 
taken in isolation rather than as an explanation of the previous sentence. Enim 
is also absent from the next two citations. When Augustine comes to discuss 
the absolute use of ego sum, however, the five possible complements he suggests 
all begin nisi credideritis quia ego sum. This is the only form in which this 
verse appears from now on, with ten citations in this sermon followed by two 
in Tractatus 39. Despite the frequency of this text, all surviving gospel manu-
scripts read si enim non: the progression visible here towards a flattened form 
indicates that citations with nisi should be attributed to Augustine’s reliance on 
memory.3
3)  John 6:44a; Cassiodorus, Expositio Psalmorum 44.15 (CChr.SL 97, 413.424):
nemo uenit ad me nisi pater attraxerit eum.
Stuttgart Vulgate:
nemo potest uenire ad me nisi pater qui misit me traxerit eum.
There are two instances of flattening in Cassiodorus’ version of John 6:44a, 
which are paralleled in several other Latin Fathers.4 The contraction of potest 
uenire to uenit, and the removal of auxiliary verbs in general, is widespread in 
forms from memory: not only is it shorter, but it also focusses attention on the 
complement. This could be described as the omission of the element of poten-
tiality, although this text may have been influenced by other examples of nemo 
uenit such as John 14:6. The omission of the subordinate clause, qui misit me, 
which is incidental to the thrust of the saying, is another alteration typical of 
flattening. Neither finds any support in biblical manuscripts, but the compound 
verb adtraxerit is attested in six Old Latin witnesses, which suggests that it may 
have been known to Cassiodorus (or his source). 
4) John 6:38; Hilary of Poitiers, De trinitate 3.9 (CChr.SL 62, 80.5):
non ueni uoluntatem meam facere, sed uoluntatem eius qui me misit.
Stuttgart Vulgate:
quia descendi de caelo non ut faciam uoluntatem meam, sed uoluntatem eius qui 
misit me.
274 H.A.g. HougHton
5 See Philip H. Burton, The Old Latin Gospels (Oxford, 2000), 17f.
This version of John 6:38 is introduced as a verbatim citation, and Hilary’s 
reading non ueni… facere is corroborated by other identical citations (Tractatus 
super Psalmos 91.6 and 139.12; De trinitate 9.74 and 11.30). Nonetheless, he has 
the Vulgate form at De trinitate 9.49, and there is nothing in surviving gospel 
manuscripts which supports his paraphrase. Several features can be interpreted 
as flattening: the fronting of the emphatic non, the replacement of descendi de 
caelo by a more general ueni, and the simplification of ut faciam to facere. The 
rhetorical balance of the resultant form is noteworthy, with two contrasting 
phrases of comparable length centred in an almost chiastic structure around 
facere. Such a form of text is easily committed to memory. It is hardly surpris-
ing that a similar version is found in numerous other Latin authors, including 
Augustine, Gregory the Great, Sedulius Scottus, Venantius Fortunatus and 
 Vigilius of Thapsus. The same type of variation is also found in citations of 
John 3:17 which read non uenit filius hominis rather than non enim misit deus 
filium suum in mundum (e.g. Augustine, Contra partem Donati 8.11; Tractatus 
in Iohannis euangelium 87.2.12 and 95.4.13). The expression filius hominis here 
betrays harmonisation with the Synoptic Gospels (e.g. Matthew 18:11 etc.), 
another characteristic of citations made from memory.
5) John 3:5b; Tertullian, De baptismo 13.3 (CChr.SL 1, 283.14):
nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et spiritu sancto, non intrabit in regnum caelorum.
Stuttgart Vulgate:
nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et spiritu non potest introire in regnum dei. 
Around thirty examples of John 3:5 in the Vetus Latina Database have the Mat-
thaean regnum caelorum rather than the Johannine regnum dei. Such a harmoni-
sation is not restricted to Church Fathers: it also appears in the Old Latin Codex 
Palatinus as well as several Greek witnesses. Of course, this does not imply that 
all these citations were taken from biblical manuscripts, but it is possible that this 
reading was in a version known to Tertullian, particularly as Codex Palatinus is 
sometimes classified as an African text.5 The addition of sancto is also found in 
the Latin gospel tradition. The only variant which presents conclusive evidence of 
flattening is the replacement of potest introire by intrabit (see John 6:44 above), 
again paralleled by a number of other Fathers, including Augustine, Chromatius 
of Aquileia, Caesarius of Arles, Filastrius of Brescia and Gregory the Great.
6) John 14:2a; Augustine, De natura et origine animae 3.11.15 (CV 60, 371.28).
In this passage, Augustine criticises the citation of John 14:2 offered by his 
opponent Vincentius Victor, multae mansiones sunt apud patrem meum, and 
 ‘Flattening’ in Latin Biblical Citations 275
6 The only exception among Greek manuscripts noted in Tischendorf is G (036), which omits 
mou. Greek patristic evidence has been taken from the database in preparation for the Inter-
national Greek New Testament Project Editio Critica Maior of John. I am very grateful to 
Dr Roderic L. Mullen for access to this information: I would also like to thank Professor David 
C. Parker for comments on this paper.
states that the correct version reads in domo patris mei mansiones multae sunt. 
This is corroborated by the Vulgate and every surviving Old Latin witness, 
which all agree on in domo patris mei. However, Vincentius’ text is not without 
precedent: among the Fathers who read apud patrem meum are Ambrose, 
Cyprian, Filastrius of Brescia, Gregory of Elvira, Jerome (on eighteen occa-
sions), Hilary of Poitiers and Tertullian. In fact, it even appears in three of 
Augustine’s own citations (Enarratio in Psalmum 60.6.10, Sermo 239.2.2 and 
De uirginitate 26.26)! These may have been influenced by the phrase apud 
patrem elsewhere in the Gospels (e.g. Matthew 6:1). That said, there is a simi-
lar situation in the Greek tradition: although biblical manuscripts appear to be 
invariant, with ên t±Ç oîkíaç toÕ patróv mou, a large number of Greek Fathers 
cite this verse with parà t¬ç patrí, the equivalent of apud patrem, including 
all nineteen citations in Eusebius of Caesarea.6 Although some of the examples 
in Latin Fathers may derive from Greek writings, this is a good illustration of 
how the same processes of flattening can be applied independently in different 
languages. Nonetheless, in the absence of any attestation in a gospel codex, the 
grounds for claiming that this variant featured in a biblical manuscript are 
slim.
7) John 14:30b.
Ambrose, De fuga saeculi 23 (CV 32/2, 183.1) and elsewhere:
uenit enim huius mundi princeps et in me inuenit nihil.
Augustine, De trinitate 13.14.13 (CChr.SL 50, 406.13) and elsewhere:
ecce uenit princeps huius mundi et in me nihil inuenit.
Stuttgart Vulgate:
uenit enim princeps mundi huius et in me non habet quicquam.
The agreement between Augustine and Ambrose in reading inuenit nihil is 
striking. Although nihil might be a flattened form of non… quicquam, the use 
of the more specific verb inuenit rather than habet goes against the character-
istic direction of flattening towards a semantically less detailed verb. This, 
along with the preservation of enim in Ambrose’s citation, suggests that inuenit 
nihil may not be an example of flattening, but a genuine alternative reading. 
Investigation of the manuscripts bears this out: the Old Latin Codex Brixianus 
reads non inueniet quicquam, which in turn corresponds to a Greek variant, 
276 H.A.g. HougHton
7 Tindaro Caragliano, Restitutio critica textus latini evangelii secundum Iohannem ex scrip-
tis S. Ambrosii: Biblica 27 (1946) 30-64 & 210-40, 219.
8 See the commentary on John 4:46, 6:67, 7:25 and 20:27 in H.A.G. Houghton, Augustine’s 
Text of John (2008).
oûk eürßsei oûdén. Other citations in Augustine and Ambrose have a future 
tense, nihil inueniet, which also translates this Greek text. On the other hand, 
the wide attestation of the present tense nihil inuenit in the Fathers combined 
with the present tense of other codices in this verse leads Caragliano to suggest 
that both forms derive from manuscripts which are no longer preserved.7 
Given that the variations in word order are also paralleled in surviving Old 
Latin  witnesses, the only instance of flattening seems to be the treatment of 
the opening words in Augustine, who adds ecce on other occasions.8
Conclusion
The process of flattening comprises a set of alterations characteristic of cita-
tions made from memory, when a biblical verse is presented out of its original 
context and attention is focussed on a particular aspect or theme. Several of 
these have been illustrated in the examples above, including:
a) Deletion of connectives
b) Replacement of pronouns
c) Re-ordering of phrases
d) Omission of less important or incidental material, such as relative clauses
e) Changes in word order, especially fronting of important words
f) Combination or separation of words (e.g. nisi for si non)
g) Variation in verb form (e.g. intrabit for potest introire, or facere for ut faciam)
h) Harmonisation with other accounts
The result is often a memorable, rhetorically-balanced form, which is not unique 
to an individual Father but shared across a broad range of texts and even 
between languages. Some of these variants, however, including harmonisations 
and omissions, may be shared by surviving biblical manuscripts. Comparison 
with continuous-text witnesses, including those in the original language when 
dealing with a translated tradition, is necessary in order to determine the extent 
to which each citation may represent the reading of a codex. In practice, this 
prevents the reconstruction based on patristic evidence of a multitude of forms 
of text which may never have existed. Only after we have accounted for elements 
attributable to flattening can we use these citations as evidence for the text of 
the Gospel. 


'Flattening' in Latin biblical citations

University of Birmingham Research Portal

  University of Birmingham'Flattening’ in Latin Biblical CitationsHoughton, H.A.G.Document VersionPublisher's PDF, also known as Version of recordCitation for published version (Harvard):Houghton, HAG 2010, 'Flattening’ in Latin Biblical Citations. in J Baun, A Cameron, M Edwards & M Vinzent(eds), Studia Patristica. Papers from the Fifteenth International Patristics Conference.. Studia Patristica, vol. 45,Peeters Publishers, Leuven, pp. 271-276.Link to publication on Research at Birmingham portalGeneral rightsUnless a licence is specified above, all rights (including copyright and moral rights) in this document are retained by the authors and/or thecopyright holders. The express permission of the copyright holder must be obtained for any use of this material other than for purposespermitted by law.•	Users may freely distribute the URL that is used to identify this publication.•	Users may download and/or print one copy of the publication from the University of Birmingham research portal for the purpose of privatestudy or non-commercial research.•	User may use extracts from the document in line with the concept of ‘fair dealing’ under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (?)•	Users may not further distribute the material nor use it for the purposes of commercial gain.Where a licence is displayed above, please note the terms and conditions of the licence govern your use of this document.When citing, please reference the published version.Take down policyWhile the University of Birmingham exercises care and attention in making items available there are rare occasions when an item has beenuploaded in error or has been deemed to be commercially or otherwise sensitive.If you believe that this is the case for this document, please contact UBIRA@lists.bham.ac.uk providing details and we will remove access tothe work immediately and investigate.Download date: 01. Mar. 2020* The author is a Research Fellow on the Vetus Latina Iohannes project funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council.1 Patristic citations have been taken from the Vetus Latina Database, a card index available for consultation at the Vetus Latina-Institut in Beuron and online at http://www.brepolis.net/vld. An updated version of this database is planned as part of the new edition of the Vetus Latina ‘Flattening’ in Latin Biblical CitationsHugh A.G. HougHton, Birmingham*One of the problems with using patristic citations for biblical textual criticism is the difficulty of determining the accuracy with which a Father cites Scripture. For ‘primary’ citations, use of a biblical codex is explicit or probable. Other ‘secondary’ citations, however, have no such indication: some may have been drawn from a manuscript, but the majority are likely to have been made from memory in keeping with ancient practice. This is not to say that they are without value for the text of Scripture, but they require careful analysis before they can be used in this way.Certain alterations are characteristic of citations made from memory. This process, which may be described as ‘flattening’, does not simply consist of removing references to the original context but may also involve a more active reshaping of the biblical text employing rhetorical techniques. Most of these variations were probably not introduced deliberately: a flattened form is shorter, easier to memorise and concentrates on a single aspect of the biblical text, the more clearly to illustrate an argument. The nature of this practice means that the same types of variation will be found independently in different authors and across different languages. The occurrence of an identical text in two or more Fathers is not necessarily an indication of mutual dependence or shared reliance on a third source, although this will be true in certain cases. It is possible to identify instances of flattening by comparing the patristic cita-tion with the text transmitted in biblical exemplars. In the case of the early Latin Fathers, these are the handful of surviving Old Latin versions as well as the wit-nesses to the later Vulgate tradition. As gospel manuscripts contain a continuous text they are unlikely to have been influenced by flattening, although they may be subject to other types of alteration during the copying process. Given the scarcity of Old Latin witnesses, however, patristic citations may include readings which were present in a version which is no longer extant. The seven examples which follow from the Gospel according to John will illustrate how biblical references in the Church Fathers may be analysed with particular reference to the concept of flattening. They come from a variety of authors and works, in order to show the prevalence of this phenomenon throughout the tradition.1Studia Patristica XLV, 271-276.© Peeters Publishers, 2010.272 H.A.g. HougHtonIohannes currently in preparation at the University of Birmingham, to be hosted on the website http://www.iohannes.com. In this paper, Old Latin manuscripts are cited from Adolf Jülicher, with Walter Matzkow and Kurt Aland (eds.), Itala. IV. Johannes-Evangelium (Berlin, 1963). The editorial text of the Stuttgart Vulgate (Robert Weber, Roger Gryson, et al. [eds.], Biblia Sacra Iuxta Vulgatam Versionem [editio quartam emendatam] [Stuttgart, 1994]) has been taken as representative of the Vulgate, with punctuation added. 2 For more on Augustine’s citation technique in this work and other writings, see Hugh A.G. Houghton, Augustine’s Text of John: Patristic Citations and Latin Gospel Manuscripts (Oxford, 2008).1) John 10:18; Ambrose, De fide 2.25 (CV 78, 65):potestatem habeo ponendi animam meam et potestatem habeo sumendi eam. nullus eam tollit a me, sed ego a memetipso pono eam.Stuttgart Vulgate:nemo tollit eam a me, sed ego pono eam a meipso. potestatem habeo ponendi eam, et potestatem habeo iterum sumendi eam. hoc mandatum accepi a patre meo.Ambrose has reversed the order of the two phrases he cites and replaced the first pronoun with the object, animam meam, from the previous verse. Both alterations enable the verse to be quoted out of context, with the key sentence fronted for emphasis. There is no example of this re-ordering of the verse in biblical manuscripts; the one instance of animam meam after ponendi, in the Old Latin Codex Aureus, was later corrected. By contrast, both Ambrose’s other citations of John 10:17-8 in this work (De fide 4.120 and 5.131) have the regular pronouns and word-order. It is possible that the other variants nullus and memetipso represent traces of an Old Latin text (memetipso occurs here in Codex Vercellensis), although they do not appear in the two later references. Several other Fathers cite similar forms of this verse to Ambrose, including Augustine (Sermo 52.13, 299A.10; Tractatus 8.10.12, 11.2.31, 37.9.28 etc.), Cerea-lis (Disputatio 6), Petrus Chrysologus (Sermo 37.3, 40.3 etc.) and the Contra Varimadum of Ps.-Vigilius.2)  John 8:24b; Augustine, Tractatus in Iohannis euangelium 38.7-8 (CChr.SL 36, 341-2).The process of flattening can often be traced in Augustine’s sermons, recorded verbatim by stenographers. When delivering his commentary on John to the congregation at Hippo, he would read the initial citation from his codex (an early copy of the Vulgate) but rely on memory as he developed his exposition.2 The first occurrence of John 8:24b appears as: si enim non credideritis quia ego sum, moriemini in peccatis uestris.Three sentences later, he gives the whole line again, but without enim. The omission of the connective is typical of flattening, since the text is now being  ‘Flattening’ in Latin Biblical Citations 2733 Augustine’s treatment of John 5:22 in Tractatus in Iohannis euangelium 21.12ff. offers an almost identical example: the initial citation of neque enim pater iudicat quemquam then becomes non enim pater iudicat quemquam a few lines later, before reaching his preferred form pater non iudicat quemquam which appears in all subsequent citations.4 See, amongst others, Ambrose, De fide 5.149 and In Lucam 8.9; Augustine, De diuersis quaestionibus 38.8; id., Sermo 112A.11 etc.; Jerome, Commentariolus in Psalmos 15; Maxentius, Aduersus Hormisdam 40; Sedulius Scottus, In Matthaeum 1.1. taken in isolation rather than as an explanation of the previous sentence. Enim is also absent from the next two citations. When Augustine comes to discuss the absolute use of ego sum, however, the five possible complements he suggests all begin nisi credideritis quia ego sum. This is the only form in which this verse appears from now on, with ten citations in this sermon followed by two in Tractatus 39. Despite the frequency of this text, all surviving gospel manu-scripts read si enim non: the progression visible here towards a flattened form indicates that citations with nisi should be attributed to Augustine’s reliance on memory.33)  John 6:44a; Cassiodorus, Expositio Psalmorum 44.15 (CChr.SL 97, 413.424):nemo uenit ad me nisi pater attraxerit eum.Stuttgart Vulgate:nemo potest uenire ad me nisi pater qui misit me traxerit eum.There are two instances of flattening in Cassiodorus’ version of John 6:44a, which are paralleled in several other Latin Fathers.4 The contraction of potest uenire to uenit, and the removal of auxiliary verbs in general, is widespread in forms from memory: not only is it shorter, but it also focusses attention on the complement. This could be described as the omission of the element of poten-tiality, although this text may have been influenced by other examples of nemo uenit such as John 14:6. The omission of the subordinate clause, qui misit me, which is incidental to the thrust of the saying, is another alteration typical of flattening. Neither finds any support in biblical manuscripts, but the compound verb adtraxerit is attested in six Old Latin witnesses, which suggests that it may have been known to Cassiodorus (or his source). 4) John 6:38; Hilary of Poitiers, De trinitate 3.9 (CChr.SL 62, 80.5):non ueni uoluntatem meam facere, sed uoluntatem eius qui me misit.Stuttgart Vulgate:quia descendi de caelo non ut faciam uoluntatem meam, sed uoluntatem eius qui misit me.274 H.A.g. HougHton5 See Philip H. Burton, The Old Latin Gospels (Oxford, 2000), 17f.This version of John 6:38 is introduced as a verbatim citation, and Hilary’s reading non ueni… facere is corroborated by other identical citations (Tractatus super Psalmos 91.6 and 139.12; De trinitate 9.74 and 11.30). Nonetheless, he has the Vulgate form at De trinitate 9.49, and there is nothing in surviving gospel manuscripts which supports his paraphrase. Several features can be interpreted as flattening: the fronting of the emphatic non, the replacement of descendi de caelo by a more general ueni, and the simplification of ut faciam to facere. The rhetorical balance of the resultant form is noteworthy, with two contrasting phrases of comparable length centred in an almost chiastic structure around facere. Such a form of text is easily committed to memory. It is hardly surpris-ing that a similar version is found in numerous other Latin authors, including Augustine, Gregory the Great, Sedulius Scottus, Venantius Fortunatus and  Vigilius of Thapsus. The same type of variation is also found in citations of John 3:17 which read non uenit filius hominis rather than non enim misit deus filium suum in mundum (e.g. Augustine, Contra partem Donati 8.11; Tractatus in Iohannis euangelium 87.2.12 and 95.4.13). The expression filius hominis here betrays harmonisation with the Synoptic Gospels (e.g. Matthew 18:11 etc.), another characteristic of citations made from memory.5) John 3:5b; Tertullian, De baptismo 13.3 (CChr.SL 1, 283.14):nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et spiritu sancto, non intrabit in regnum caelorum.Stuttgart Vulgate:nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et spiritu non potest introire in regnum dei. Around thirty examples of John 3:5 in the Vetus Latina Database have the Mat-thaean regnum caelorum rather than the Johannine regnum dei. Such a harmoni-sation is not restricted to Church Fathers: it also appears in the Old Latin Codex Palatinus as well as several Greek witnesses. Of course, this does not imply that all these citations were taken from biblical manuscripts, but it is possible that this reading was in a version known to Tertullian, particularly as Codex Palatinus is sometimes classified as an African text.5 The addition of sancto is also found in the Latin gospel tradition. The only variant which presents conclusive evidence of flattening is the replacement of potest introire by intrabit (see John 6:44 above), again paralleled by a number of other Fathers, including Augustine, Chromatius of Aquileia, Caesarius of Arles, Filastrius of Brescia and Gregory the Great.6) John 14:2a; Augustine, De natura et origine animae 3.11.15 (CV 60, 371.28).In this passage, Augustine criticises the citation of John 14:2 offered by his opponent Vincentius Victor, multae mansiones sunt apud patrem meum, and  ‘Flattening’ in Latin Biblical Citations 2756 The only exception among Greek manuscripts noted in Tischendorf is G (036), which omits mou. Greek patristic evidence has been taken from the database in preparation for the Inter-national Greek New Testament Project Editio Critica Maior of John. I am very grateful to Dr Roderic L. Mullen for access to this information: I would also like to thank Professor David C. Parker for comments on this paper.states that the correct version reads in domo patris mei mansiones multae sunt. This is corroborated by the Vulgate and every surviving Old Latin witness, which all agree on in domo patris mei. However, Vincentius’ text is not without precedent: among the Fathers who read apud patrem meum are Ambrose, Cyprian, Filastrius of Brescia, Gregory of Elvira, Jerome (on eighteen occa-sions), Hilary of Poitiers and Tertullian. In fact, it even appears in three of Augustine’s own citations (Enarratio in Psalmum 60.6.10, Sermo 239.2.2 and De uirginitate 26.26)! These may have been influenced by the phrase apud patrem elsewhere in the Gospels (e.g. Matthew 6:1). That said, there is a simi-lar situation in the Greek tradition: although biblical manuscripts appear to be invariant, with ên t±Ç oîkíaç toÕ patróv mou, a large number of Greek Fathers cite this verse with parà t¬ç patrí, the equivalent of apud patrem, including all nineteen citations in Eusebius of Caesarea.6 Although some of the examples in Latin Fathers may derive from Greek writings, this is a good illustration of how the same processes of flattening can be applied independently in different languages. Nonetheless, in the absence of any attestation in a gospel codex, the grounds for claiming that this variant featured in a biblical manuscript are slim.7) John 14:30b.Ambrose, De fuga saeculi 23 (CV 32/2, 183.1) and elsewhere:uenit enim huius mundi princeps et in me inuenit nihil.Augustine, De trinitate 13.14.13 (CChr.SL 50, 406.13) and elsewhere:ecce uenit princeps huius mundi et in me nihil inuenit.Stuttgart Vulgate:uenit enim princeps mundi huius et in me non habet quicquam.The agreement between Augustine and Ambrose in reading inuenit nihil is striking. Although nihil might be a flattened form of non… quicquam, the use of the more specific verb inuenit rather than habet goes against the character-istic direction of flattening towards a semantically less detailed verb. This, along with the preservation of enim in Ambrose’s citation, suggests that inuenit nihil may not be an example of flattening, but a genuine alternative reading. Investigation of the manuscripts bears this out: the Old Latin Codex Brixianus reads non inueniet quicquam, which in turn corresponds to a Greek variant, 276 H.A.g. HougHton7 Tindaro Caragliano, Restitutio critica textus latini evangelii secundum Iohannem ex scrip-tis S. Ambrosii: Biblica 27 (1946) 30-64 & 210-40, 219.8 See the commentary on John 4:46, 6:67, 7:25 and 20:27 in H.A.G. Houghton, Augustine’s Text of John (2008).oûk eürßsei oûdén. Other citations in Augustine and Ambrose have a future tense, nihil inueniet, which also translates this Greek text. On the other hand, the wide attestation of the present tense nihil inuenit in the Fathers combined with the present tense of other codices in this verse leads Caragliano to suggest that both forms derive from manuscripts which are no longer preserved.7 Given that the variations in word order are also paralleled in surviving Old Latin  witnesses, the only instance of flattening seems to be the treatment of the opening words in Augustine, who adds ecce on other occasions.8ConclusionThe process of flattening comprises a set of alterations characteristic of cita-tions made from memory, when a biblical verse is presented out of its original context and attention is focussed on a particular aspect or theme. Several of these have been illustrated in the examples above, including:a) Deletion of connectivesb) Replacement of pronounsc) Re-ordering of phrasesd) Omission of less important or incidental material, such as relative clausese) Changes in word order, especially fronting of important wordsf) Combination or separation of words (e.g. nisi for si non)g) Variation in verb form (e.g. intrabit for potest introire, or facere for ut faciam)h) Harmonisation with other accountsThe result is often a memorable, rhetorically-balanced form, which is not unique to an individual Father but shared across a broad range of texts and even between languages. Some of these variants, however, including harmonisations and omissions, may be shared by surviving biblical manuscripts. Comparison with continuous-text witnesses, including those in the original language when dealing with a translated tradition, is necessary in order to determine the extent to which each citation may represent the reading of a codex. In practice, this prevents the reconstruction based on patristic evidence of a multitude of forms of text which may never have existed. Only after we have accounted for elements attributable to flattening can we use these citations as evidence for the text of the Gospel. 

'Flattening’ in Latin Biblical Citations

  'Flattening’ in Latin Biblical CitationsHoughton, H.A.G.Document VersionPublisher's PDF, also known as Version of recordCitation for published version (Harvard):Houghton, HAG 2010, 'Flattening’ in Latin Biblical Citations. in J Baun, A Cameron, M Edwards & M Vinzent(eds), Studia Patristica. Papers from the Fifteenth International Patristics Conference.. Studia Patristica, vol. 45,Peeters Publishers, Leuven, pp. 271-276.Link to publication on Research at Birmingham portalGeneral rightsUnless a licence is specified above, all rights (including copyright and moral rights) in this document are retained by the authors and/or thecopyright holders. The express permission of the copyright holder must be obtained for any use of this material other than for purposespermitted by law.•	Users may freely distribute the URL that is used to identify this publication.•	Users may download and/or print one copy of the publication from the University of Birmingham research portal for the purpose of privatestudy or non-commercial research.•	User may use extracts from the document in line with the concept of ‘fair dealing’ under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (?)•	Users may not further distribute the material nor use it for the purposes of commercial gain.Where a licence is displayed above, please note the terms and conditions of the licence govern your use of this document.When citing, please reference the published version.Take down policyWhile the University of Birmingham exercises care and attention in making items available there are rare occasions when an item has beenuploaded in error or has been deemed to be commercially or otherwise sensitive.If you believe that this is the case for this document, please contact UBIRA@lists.bham.ac.uk providing details and we will remove access tothe work immediately and investigate.Download date: 29. May. 2019* The author is a Research Fellow on the Vetus Latina Iohannes project funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council.1 Patristic citations have been taken from the Vetus Latina Database, a card index available for consultation at the Vetus Latina-Institut in Beuron and online at http://www.brepolis.net/vld. An updated version of this database is planned as part of the new edition of the Vetus Latina ‘Flattening’ in Latin Biblical CitationsHugh A.G. HougHton, Birmingham*One of the problems with using patristic citations for biblical textual criticism is the difficulty of determining the accuracy with which a Father cites Scripture. For ‘primary’ citations, use of a biblical codex is explicit or probable. Other ‘secondary’ citations, however, have no such indication: some may have been drawn from a manuscript, but the majority are likely to have been made from memory in keeping with ancient practice. This is not to say that they are without value for the text of Scripture, but they require careful analysis before they can be used in this way.Certain alterations are characteristic of citations made from memory. This process, which may be described as ‘flattening’, does not simply consist of removing references to the original context but may also involve a more active reshaping of the biblical text employing rhetorical techniques. Most of these variations were probably not introduced deliberately: a flattened form is shorter, easier to memorise and concentrates on a single aspect of the biblical text, the more clearly to illustrate an argument. The nature of this practice means that the same types of variation will be found independently in different authors and across different languages. The occurrence of an identical text in two or more Fathers is not necessarily an indication of mutual dependence or shared reliance on a third source, although this will be true in certain cases. It is possible to identify instances of flattening by comparing the patristic cita-tion with the text transmitted in biblical exemplars. In the case of the early Latin Fathers, these are the handful of surviving Old Latin versions as well as the wit-nesses to the later Vulgate tradition. As gospel manuscripts contain a continuous text they are unlikely to have been influenced by flattening, although they may be subject to other types of alteration during the copying process. Given the scarcity of Old Latin witnesses, however, patristic citations may include readings which were present in a version which is no longer extant. The seven examples which follow from the Gospel according to John will illustrate how biblical references in the Church Fathers may be analysed with particular reference to the concept of flattening. They come from a variety of authors and works, in order to show the prevalence of this phenomenon throughout the tradition.1Studia Patristica XLV, 271-276.© Peeters Publishers, 2010.272 H.A.g. HougHtonIohannes currently in preparation at the University of Birmingham, to be hosted on the website http://www.iohannes.com. In this paper, Old Latin manuscripts are cited from Adolf Jülicher, with Walter Matzkow and Kurt Aland (eds.), Itala. IV. Johannes-Evangelium (Berlin, 1963). The editorial text of the Stuttgart Vulgate (Robert Weber, Roger Gryson, et al. [eds.], Biblia Sacra Iuxta Vulgatam Versionem [editio quartam emendatam] [Stuttgart, 1994]) has been taken as representative of the Vulgate, with punctuation added. 2 For more on Augustine’s citation technique in this work and other writings, see Hugh A.G. Houghton, Augustine’s Text of John: Patristic Citations and Latin Gospel Manuscripts (Oxford, 2008).1) John 10:18; Ambrose, De fide 2.25 (CV 78, 65):potestatem habeo ponendi animam meam et potestatem habeo sumendi eam. nullus eam tollit a me, sed ego a memetipso pono eam.Stuttgart Vulgate:nemo tollit eam a me, sed ego pono eam a meipso. potestatem habeo ponendi eam, et potestatem habeo iterum sumendi eam. hoc mandatum accepi a patre meo.Ambrose has reversed the order of the two phrases he cites and replaced the first pronoun with the object, animam meam, from the previous verse. Both alterations enable the verse to be quoted out of context, with the key sentence fronted for emphasis. There is no example of this re-ordering of the verse in biblical manuscripts; the one instance of animam meam after ponendi, in the Old Latin Codex Aureus, was later corrected. By contrast, both Ambrose’s other citations of John 10:17-8 in this work (De fide 4.120 and 5.131) have the regular pronouns and word-order. It is possible that the other variants nullus and memetipso represent traces of an Old Latin text (memetipso occurs here in Codex Vercellensis), although they do not appear in the two later references. Several other Fathers cite similar forms of this verse to Ambrose, including Augustine (Sermo 52.13, 299A.10; Tractatus 8.10.12, 11.2.31, 37.9.28 etc.), Cerea-lis (Disputatio 6), Petrus Chrysologus (Sermo 37.3, 40.3 etc.) and the Contra Varimadum of Ps.-Vigilius.2)  John 8:24b; Augustine, Tractatus in Iohannis euangelium 38.7-8 (CChr.SL 36, 341-2).The process of flattening can often be traced in Augustine’s sermons, recorded verbatim by stenographers. When delivering his commentary on John to the congregation at Hippo, he would read the initial citation from his codex (an early copy of the Vulgate) but rely on memory as he developed his exposition.2 The first occurrence of John 8:24b appears as: si enim non credideritis quia ego sum, moriemini in peccatis uestris.Three sentences later, he gives the whole line again, but without enim. The omission of the connective is typical of flattening, since the text is now being  ‘Flattening’ in Latin Biblical Citations 2733 Augustine’s treatment of John 5:22 in Tractatus in Iohannis euangelium 21.12ff. offers an almost identical example: the initial citation of neque enim pater iudicat quemquam then becomes non enim pater iudicat quemquam a few lines later, before reaching his preferred form pater non iudicat quemquam which appears in all subsequent citations.4 See, amongst others, Ambrose, De fide 5.149 and In Lucam 8.9; Augustine, De diuersis quaestionibus 38.8; id., Sermo 112A.11 etc.; Jerome, Commentariolus in Psalmos 15; Maxentius, Aduersus Hormisdam 40; Sedulius Scottus, In Matthaeum 1.1. taken in isolation rather than as an explanation of the previous sentence. Enim is also absent from the next two citations. When Augustine comes to discuss the absolute use of ego sum, however, the five possible complements he suggests all begin nisi credideritis quia ego sum. This is the only form in which this verse appears from now on, with ten citations in this sermon followed by two in Tractatus 39. Despite the frequency of this text, all surviving gospel manu-scripts read si enim non: the progression visible here towards a flattened form indicates that citations with nisi should be attributed to Augustine’s reliance on memory.33)  John 6:44a; Cassiodorus, Expositio Psalmorum 44.15 (CChr.SL 97, 413.424):nemo uenit ad me nisi pater attraxerit eum.Stuttgart Vulgate:nemo potest uenire ad me nisi pater qui misit me traxerit eum.There are two instances of flattening in Cassiodorus’ version of John 6:44a, which are paralleled in several other Latin Fathers.4 The contraction of potest uenire to uenit, and the removal of auxiliary verbs in general, is widespread in forms from memory: not only is it shorter, but it also focusses attention on the complement. This could be described as the omission of the element of poten-tiality, although this text may have been influenced by other examples of nemo uenit such as John 14:6. The omission of the subordinate clause, qui misit me, which is incidental to the thrust of the saying, is another alteration typical of flattening. Neither finds any support in biblical manuscripts, but the compound verb adtraxerit is attested in six Old Latin witnesses, which suggests that it may have been known to Cassiodorus (or his source). 4) John 6:38; Hilary of Poitiers, De trinitate 3.9 (CChr.SL 62, 80.5):non ueni uoluntatem meam facere, sed uoluntatem eius qui me misit.Stuttgart Vulgate:quia descendi de caelo non ut faciam uoluntatem meam, sed uoluntatem eius qui misit me.274 H.A.g. HougHton5 See Philip H. Burton, The Old Latin Gospels (Oxford, 2000), 17f.This version of John 6:38 is introduced as a verbatim citation, and Hilary’s reading non ueni… facere is corroborated by other identical citations (Tractatus super Psalmos 91.6 and 139.12; De trinitate 9.74 and 11.30). Nonetheless, he has the Vulgate form at De trinitate 9.49, and there is nothing in surviving gospel manuscripts which supports his paraphrase. Several features can be interpreted as flattening: the fronting of the emphatic non, the replacement of descendi de caelo by a more general ueni, and the simplification of ut faciam to facere. The rhetorical balance of the resultant form is noteworthy, with two contrasting phrases of comparable length centred in an almost chiastic structure around facere. Such a form of text is easily committed to memory. It is hardly surpris-ing that a similar version is found in numerous other Latin authors, including Augustine, Gregory the Great, Sedulius Scottus, Venantius Fortunatus and  Vigilius of Thapsus. The same type of variation is also found in citations of John 3:17 which read non uenit filius hominis rather than non enim misit deus filium suum in mundum (e.g. Augustine, Contra partem Donati 8.11; Tractatus in Iohannis euangelium 87.2.12 and 95.4.13). The expression filius hominis here betrays harmonisation with the Synoptic Gospels (e.g. Matthew 18:11 etc.), another characteristic of citations made from memory.5) John 3:5b; Tertullian, De baptismo 13.3 (CChr.SL 1, 283.14):nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et spiritu sancto, non intrabit in regnum caelorum.Stuttgart Vulgate:nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et spiritu non potest introire in regnum dei. Around thirty examples of John 3:5 in the Vetus Latina Database have the Mat-thaean regnum caelorum rather than the Johannine regnum dei. Such a harmoni-sation is not restricted to Church Fathers: it also appears in the Old Latin Codex Palatinus as well as several Greek witnesses. Of course, this does not imply that all these citations were taken from biblical manuscripts, but it is possible that this reading was in a version known to Tertullian, particularly as Codex Palatinus is sometimes classified as an African text.5 The addition of sancto is also found in the Latin gospel tradition. The only variant which presents conclusive evidence of flattening is the replacement of potest introire by intrabit (see John 6:44 above), again paralleled by a number of other Fathers, including Augustine, Chromatius of Aquileia, Caesarius of Arles, Filastrius of Brescia and Gregory the Great.6) John 14:2a; Augustine, De natura et origine animae 3.11.15 (CV 60, 371.28).In this passage, Augustine criticises the citation of John 14:2 offered by his opponent Vincentius Victor, multae mansiones sunt apud patrem meum, and  ‘Flattening’ in Latin Biblical Citations 2756 The only exception among Greek manuscripts noted in Tischendorf is G (036), which omits mou. Greek patristic evidence has been taken from the database in preparation for the Inter-national Greek New Testament Project Editio Critica Maior of John. I am very grateful to Dr Roderic L. Mullen for access to this information: I would also like to thank Professor David C. Parker for comments on this paper.states that the correct version reads in domo patris mei mansiones multae sunt. This is corroborated by the Vulgate and every surviving Old Latin witness, which all agree on in domo patris mei. However, Vincentius’ text is not without precedent: among the Fathers who read apud patrem meum are Ambrose, Cyprian, Filastrius of Brescia, Gregory of Elvira, Jerome (on eighteen occa-sions), Hilary of Poitiers and Tertullian. In fact, it even appears in three of Augustine’s own citations (Enarratio in Psalmum 60.6.10, Sermo 239.2.2 and De uirginitate 26.26)! These may have been influenced by the phrase apud patrem elsewhere in the Gospels (e.g. Matthew 6:1). That said, there is a simi-lar situation in the Greek tradition: although biblical manuscripts appear to be invariant, with ên t±Ç oîkíaç toÕ patróv mou, a large number of Greek Fathers cite this verse with parà t¬ç patrí, the equivalent of apud patrem, including all nineteen citations in Eusebius of Caesarea.6 Although some of the examples in Latin Fathers may derive from Greek writings, this is a good illustration of how the same processes of flattening can be applied independently in different languages. Nonetheless, in the absence of any attestation in a gospel codex, the grounds for claiming that this variant featured in a biblical manuscript are slim.7) John 14:30b.Ambrose, De fuga saeculi 23 (CV 32/2, 183.1) and elsewhere:uenit enim huius mundi princeps et in me inuenit nihil.Augustine, De trinitate 13.14.13 (CChr.SL 50, 406.13) and elsewhere:ecce uenit princeps huius mundi et in me nihil inuenit.Stuttgart Vulgate:uenit enim princeps mundi huius et in me non habet quicquam.The agreement between Augustine and Ambrose in reading inuenit nihil is striking. Although nihil might be a flattened form of non… quicquam, the use of the more specific verb inuenit rather than habet goes against the character-istic direction of flattening towards a semantically less detailed verb. This, along with the preservation of enim in Ambrose’s citation, suggests that inuenit nihil may not be an example of flattening, but a genuine alternative reading. Investigation of the manuscripts bears this out: the Old Latin Codex Brixianus reads non inueniet quicquam, which in turn corresponds to a Greek variant, 276 H.A.g. HougHton7 Tindaro Caragliano, Restitutio critica textus latini evangelii secundum Iohannem ex scrip-tis S. Ambrosii: Biblica 27 (1946) 30-64 & 210-40, 219.8 See the commentary on John 4:46, 6:67, 7:25 and 20:27 in H.A.G. Houghton, Augustine’s Text of John (2008).oûk eürßsei oûdén. Other citations in Augustine and Ambrose have a future tense, nihil inueniet, which also translates this Greek text. On the other hand, the wide attestation of the present tense nihil inuenit in the Fathers combined with the present tense of other codices in this verse leads Caragliano to suggest that both forms derive from manuscripts which are no longer preserved.7 Given that the variations in word order are also paralleled in surviving Old Latin  witnesses, the only instance of flattening seems to be the treatment of the opening words in Augustine, who adds ecce on other occasions.8ConclusionThe process of flattening comprises a set of alterations characteristic of cita-tions made from memory, when a biblical verse is presented out of its original context and attention is focussed on a particular aspect or theme. Several of these have been illustrated in the examples above, including:a) Deletion of connectivesb) Replacement of pronounsc) Re-ordering of phrasesd) Omission of less important or incidental material, such as relative clausese) Changes in word order, especially fronting of important wordsf) Combination or separation of words (e.g. nisi for si non)g) Variation in verb form (e.g. intrabit for potest introire, or facere for ut faciam)h) Harmonisation with other accountsThe result is often a memorable, rhetorically-balanced form, which is not unique to an individual Father but shared across a broad range of texts and even between languages. Some of these variants, however, including harmonisations and omissions, may be shared by surviving biblical manuscripts. Comparison with continuous-text witnesses, including those in the original language when dealing with a translated tradition, is necessary in order to determine the extent to which each citation may represent the reading of a codex. In practice, this prevents the reconstruction based on patristic evidence of a multitude of forms of text which may never have existed. Only after we have accounted for elements attributable to flattening can we use these citations as evidence for the text of the Gospel. 

http://pure-oai.bham.ac.uk/ws/files/2920747/StudPatrist45_Houghton.pdf

'Flattening' in Latin biblical citations

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

University of Birmingham Research Archive, E-prints Repository

University of Birmingham Research Portal

University of Birmingham Research Portal