Common use of CET Clause in Contracts

CET. The difference that arises from the CM’s febrientem and the Vetus Latina and Vulgate febricitantem (a b F A all agree) for the Greek πυρέσσουσαν is admittedly small. The root of each participle is different in the minutest sense as both convey the same essential meaning (febrio v. febricito, to be ill with a fever). The reason for pointing out the discrepancy in this instance lies in the fact that Jerome’s near contemporary Peter Chrysologus (380-450) chose the CM’s febrientem in his Serm. 18. The connection between a potential innovation of Jerome’s and a contemporaneously working Italian Father is appealing, but I admit tenuous on the basis of this single word. Regardless, it stands again to mention that Jerome chose a word not found in either the Vetus Latina or the Vulgate tradition. As in our last example (8:7) Jerome’s febrientem is, as far as I can reasonably ascertain, unique when set along our MSS. In fact, in a rare instance for Jülicher’s Itala, the totality of 8:14 (save for one missing et in k) is recorded as identical across all traditions. That is to say, there is not a clearly identifiable example – in my table (chapter 7, table 1) or Jülicher’s consensus – which demonstrates a precedent for alteration. The equivalence in Chrysologus may serve as evidence of its usage beyond mere typographical error. Furthermore, Jerome must have been acquainted with the historical usage in febricitantem and was either using a text otherwise unknown to us, or had himself altered the traditional translation of πυρέσσουσαν. Matthew 8:20 Nidos v. Tabernacula Et dicit ei Iesus: Uulpes foueas habent et uolucres caeli nidos. Filius autem hominis non habet ubi caput reclinet. Et dicit ei Iesus: Uulpes foveas habent et uolucres caeli tabernacula, Filius autem hominis non habet ubi caput reclinet. This section records another lexical dissimilarity in which the expected result, that is Jerome’s CM agreeing with established Vetus Latina MSS against the Vulgate tradition, is found. This particularly discrepancy rests in the treatment of the Greek κατασκηνώσεις, classically translated ‘encampments’ and here referring to the dwellings of birds. The rendering found in the CM of nidos ‘nests’ translates the intended meaning of the word if not its literal meaning. On the other hand, the Vulgate seeks to more directly render the sense of sheltering with the term tabernacula. The two choices, while both essentially conveying the resting place of the birds in Jesus’s parable, indicate variable opinions on the intention of the word. Milne’s work on Augustine demonstrates a third possibility for Matthew 8:20 not shown in the CM or Vulgate traditions, and seldom in the Vetus Latina. He cites Augustine’s caeli diuersoria (Contra Faustum 22.48) and its similarity to caeli deuorsoria in African k. The CM finds parallels in Jerome’s Rome period Ep. 22.21, indicating a preference for nidos throughout his career and during his supposed evangelical editorial period. Early Vetus Latina MSS a, b also show a preference for nidos in Matthew 8:20. Some our best and earliest Vulgate MSS record tabernacula (ZFD, S is missing this section). Vulgate Luke 9:58 is identical to Vulgate Matthew 8:20, save for its demonstration of nidos, and provides an illustrative example of further Vulgate treatment of this form.15 a uses nidos, likely under the influence of Vulgate Luke and the Vetus Latina tradition. I agree with both the Oxford and Stuttgart editions that the early usage of the new tabernacula must have been a unique decision of the Vulgate’s editor. It must be concluded that the Vulgate Matthew tabernacula is an innovation and apparently one with which Jerome was not familiar.