The Wessex Gospels
The earliest extant continuous prose rendering of all four gospels into any medieval European vernacular, the
Wessex Gospels are attested in six complete manuscripts, four of which date from the eleventh century (MSS A, B, C and Cp) and two from the twelfth (MSS H and R), with several further fragments surviving from
the tenth to the twelfth centuries.
1 The manuscripts are described in full by Roy M. Liuzza, ed., The Old English Version of the Gospels, 2 vols, EETS o.s. 304, 314 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994, 2000), I, pp. xvi–xliii, and the description below is based on his account with Ker numbers supplied; dates are those provided by Ker. The complete text of all four gospels is preserved in the following manuscripts: MS A, Cambridge University Library Ii.2.11 (Ker §20), possibly identical with the volume referred to as þeos Englisc Cristes bec in Leofric’s donation list to Exeter Cathedral library and also containing the Old English prose translation of the Gospel of Nicodemus and the Avenging of the Saviour (on these texts, see below, pp. 110–15), all copied by the same hand and dated to the second half of the eleventh century with some Latin and Old English headings added (the latter in the same hand as the main text); MS B, Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Bodley 441 (Ker §312), closely related to MS C, written in a single hand dated to the first half of the eleventh century, with various sixteenth-century additions and emendations including Old English rubrics copied from MS Cp; MS C, London, British Library, Cotton MS Otho C. I, vol. I (Ker §181), copied by a single hand dated to the first half of the eleventh century, whose text of Matthew was lost in the 1731 Cottonian fire (part of Matthew was already missing by then) and Mark badly damaged; MS Cp, Cambridge Corpus Christi College MS 140 (Ker §35), copied by four hands all dating from the first half of the eleventh century, also containing two lists of manumissions and an Old English homily based on the Latin ‘Sunday Letter’, all written in the second half of the eleventh century, as well as a Latin list of popes, archbishops and bishops and various Latin documents relating to Bath in later hands; MS H, Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Hatton 38 (Ker §325), twelfth- or thirteenth-century, probably copied from MS R, itself derived from MS B; MS R, London, British Library, MS Royal I.A XIV (Ker §425), second half of the twelfth century, based on MS B. A fragment of the Gospel of John is preserved in the eleventh-century MS L, Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Eng. Bib. C.2 (Ker §322); two tenth- or eleventh-century fragments of Mark and Matthew are found in MS Y, New Haven, Beinecke Library Beinecke 578 (Ker §1). On the recent discovery of another eleventh-century fragment, see Winfried Rudolf, ‘A Fragment of the Old English Version of the Gospel of Mark in the Folger Shakespeare Library, Washington, DC’, The Library 7 (2017), 405–17. Liuzza’s edition, which is cited here, is based on MS Cp, with corrections from B and C. Liuzza’s edition is semi-diplomatic, following manuscript punctuation; I have therefore emended some elements of punctuation and spelling. Like the translation of the Heptateuch discussed in the next chapter, this ambitious project was undertaken by a team of translators working in the south of England at some point in the tenth century. Linguistic and stylistic evidence indicates that the gospels of Mark and Luke were translated by one individual, while one or more others worked on Matthew and John.
2 A change in translation style at Matthew ch. 21 may indicate the work of another contributor; see Liuzza, ed., Gospels, II, pp. 102–19. Although scholars have often assigned a date of composition towards the end of the tenth century, the recent discovery of two fragmentary witnesses in a hand which closely resembles that of the Exeter Book might push the project back to as early as the 960s or 970s.
3 The two fragments were sold at auction at Sotheby’s in London in 2014 to a private collector; see Roy M. Liuzza, ‘Reconstructing a Lost Manuscript of the Old English Gospels’, in Medieval English and Dutch Literatures: The European Context: Essays in Honour of David F. Johnson, ed. Larissa Tracy and Geert H. M. Claassens (Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, 2022), pp. 15–28. This period saw the expulsion of secular clerks from religious houses in the south and west of England and their replacement by Benedictine monks. The chief instigators of the Benedictine Reform, King Edgar (
r. 959–975), Æthelwold Bishop of Winchester (d. 984), Dunstan Archbishop of Canterbury (d. 988) and Oswald Archbishop of York (d. 992), realised the potential of vernacular prose as a medium for disseminating orthodox Christian teaching not only to literate churchmen but also to the laity, among whom literacy had continued to grow since the time of Alfred.
4 See Rebecca Stephenson, The Politics of Language: Byrhtferth, Ælfric, and the Multilingual Identity of the Benedictine Reform (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2015). The spread of vernacular literacy among both the clergy and laity was facilitated by the development of a standard written form of English in the mid-tenth century by Bishop Æthelwold of Winchester, now known as late West Saxon.
5 See Helmut Gneuss, ‘The Origin of Standard Old English and Æthelwold’s School at Winchester’, ASE 1 (1972), 63–83; Walter Hofstetter, ‘Winchester and the Standardization of Old English Vocabulary’, ASE 17 (1988), 139–68; and Mechthild Gretsch, ‘Winchester Vocabulary and Standard Old English: The Vernacular in Late Anglo-Saxon England’, Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 83 (2001), 41–87. Æthelwold also translated the Benedictine Rule into Old English, ensuring that monks and nuns had access to the key text of the reform in their own language.
6 For the Old English text of the Benedictine Rule, see Arnold Schröer, ed., Die angelsächsischen Prosabearbeitungen der Benediktinerregel, Bibliothek der angelsächsischen Prosa 2 (Kassel: G. H. Wigand, 1885–88); for a translation with introduction, see Jacob Riyeff, trans., The Old English Rule of Saint Benedict with Related Old English Texts (Collegeville, MN: Cistercian Publications, 2017). Rohini Jayatilaka argues that the Rule was first translated for monks but subsequently adapted for use by nuns: ‘The Old English Benedictine Rule: Writing for Women and Men’, ASE 32 (2007), 147–87, at 184–5. However, monastic readers were not the only ones who stood to benefit from this translation: in another Old English work of this period, known as
King Edgar’s Establishment of Monasteries, Æthelwold explains that the king instructed him to translate the Rule for
ungelæredum woroldmonnum (‘unlearned laypeople’).
7 Councils & Synods with other Documents relating to the English Church, I: A.D. 871−1204, ed. Dorothy Whitelock, Martin Brett and Christopher N. L. Brooke (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981), pp. 150–1. See David Pratt, ‘The Voice of the King in “King Edgar’s Establishment of Monasteries”’, ASE 41 (2012), 145–204. This climate of monastic reform, vernacular book production and increasing lay literacy presents a plausible context for the composition of the
Wessex Gospels.
Translation Style
Unlike the free and at times even creative approach to the Bible taken by the Alfredian translators, and in marked contrast to the subsequent rendering of the Heptateuch, the team responsible for the
Wessex Gospels stuck very closely to the wording of the source text, aiming for what Liuzza calls ‘literal fidelity’.
8 Liuzza, ed., Gospels, II, p. 1. However, this reverential approach to the Latin source does not result in a formal-equivalence translation in the manner of the gospel glosses discussed above. On the contrary, these translators worked hard to ensure that the meaning of the gospel story was brought across to the reader as clearly as possible by routinely departing from the syntax and phrasing of the Latin, thereby producing a functional equivalence translation of the Gospels in smoothly idiomatic English prose. Comparison of the treatment of the Golden Rule in the
Wessex Gospels with that in the Second
Prologue to the
Domboc will serve to illustrate this point. While the Alfredian author creatively reinterpreted the wording of the Gospels, asserting that Christ
ne gedemde þe hine to deaðe sealde, and bebead þone hlaford lufian swa hine (‘did not grant any [mercy] to those who gave him to death, and he laid down [that one should] love one’s lord just as oneself’), the translators of the
Wessex Gospels render the corresponding biblical passages with lexical fidelity to the Vulgate.
9 See above, pp. 72–4. In terms of vocabulary, the
Wessex Gospels are therefore more closely aligned with the interlinear glossing tradition exemplified by the Lindisfarne and Rushworth glosses (Table 1).
Table 1. Comparison of Luke 23.34–40 in Vulgate, Wessex Gospels, Lindisfarne and Rushworth glosses.
Vulgate | Wessex Gospels | Lindisfarne Gloss | Rushworth Gloss |
Lk 23.34: Iesus autem dicebat: ‘Pater, dimitte illis non enim sciunt quid faciunt.’ [And Jesus said: ‘Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.’] | Ða cwæð se Hælend: ‘Fæder, forgyf him forþam hig nyton hwæt hig doð.’ [Then the Saviour said: ‘Father, forgive them for they know not what they do.’] | se hælend ða gecuoeðað fader forgef him ne forðm wuton huæd hia doas [The Saviour then said: ‘Father, forgive them because they know not what they do.’] | ðe hælend ða cwæð fæder forgef him ne forðon wutun þæt hwæt hie doað [The Saviour then said: ‘Father, forgive them because they know not what they do.’] |
Mt. 22.37: Ait illi Iesus diliges: ‘Dominum Deum tuum ex toto corde tuo et in tota anima tua et in tota mente tua.’ [Jesus said to him: ‘You shall love the Lord your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind.’] | Ða cwæð se Hælend: ‘Lufa drihten þinne God on ealre þinre heortan and on ealre þinre sawle and on eallum þinum mode.’ [Then the Saviour said: ‘Love the Lord your God in all your heart and in all your soul and all your mind.’] | cuæð him ðe hælend lufa drihten god ðinne of alle hearte ðine 7 of alle sauele ðine 7 in alle ðoht ðine [Said to them the Saviour: ‘Love (the) Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and in all your thought.’] | 7 cwæþ him to se hælend lufa dryhten god þinne of alre heortan þines 7 of alre saule þinre 7 of alra mode ðinum [Said to them the Saviour: ‘Love (the) Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and in all your thought.] |
Mt. 22.38: Hoc est maximum et primum mandatum. [This is the greatest and the first commandment.] | þæt ys þæt mæste and þæt fyrmeste bebod. [This is the greatest and the first commandment.] | þis is forðon maast ꝉ heest 7 ðe forma bod [This is therefore the greatest or highest and the first commandment.] | forþon þe þis bebod þæt mæste 7 þæt æreste [Therefore is this commandment the greatest and the first.] |
Mt. 22.39: Secundum autem simile est: huic diliges proximum tuum sicut te ipsum. [And the second is like to this: You shall love your neighbour as yourself.] | Oþyr ys þysum gelic: ‘Lufa þinne nehstan swa swa þe sylfne.’ [The second is like this: ‘Love your neighbour as yourself’.] | ðe æfterra uutedlice gelic is ðisum lufa ðone ðe neesta ðin suæ ðeh seolfne [The second is truly like this: ‘Love your neighbour as yourself.] | þæt æftere þonne is gelic þæm lufa þone næhstu þinne swa þec seolfne [The second then is like that: ‘Love your neighbour as yourself.] |
Mt. 22.40: In his duobus mandatis universa lex pendet et prophetae […]. [On these two commandments depends the whole law and the prophets.] | On þysum twam bebodum byþ gefylled eall seo æ […]. [In these two commandments is fulfilled the whole law.] | in ðisum tuæm bodum all æ stondes ꝉ honges 7 witgo [In these two commandments all (the) law stands or depends and (the) prophets.] | in þissum twæm bebodum ealle æ hongað 7 witga [In these two commandments all (the) law depends and (the) prophets.] |
Nevertheless, in a departure from the glossing style, a number of small syntactical alterations, such as the reversal of genitive constructions (e.g.
Deum tuum >
þinne god;
anima tua >
þinre heortan;
mente tua >
þinum mode), and grammatical modifications (e.g. present tense:
pendet > present tense + participle:
byþ gefylled), accommodate the scriptural source into idiomatic English prose. Similarly, the regular translation of the personal name
Iesus with the epithet
se hælend (‘the Saviour’) – common in Old English – makes the Gospel’s central doctrinal message abundantly clear to the reader.
10 The use of the term hælend for Iesus is an etymological translation of the Hebrew Yəhôšuaʿ, as Ælfric states in his homily for the Annunciation of St Mary, His nama wæs ‘Hiesus’, þæt is “hælend”, forðan ðe he gehælð ealle ða þe on hine rihtlice gelyfað (‘His name was Jesus, that is “saviour”, because he saves all those who rightly believe in him’) (CH II.13, pp. 238–9), while in his homily on Mid-Lent Sunday, he explains, Iesus is ebreisc nama, þæt is on leden Saluator, and on englisc Hælend, forðan ðe he gehælð his folc fram heora synnum (‘Jesus is a Hebrew name, that is Salvator in Latin, that is Hælend in English, because he heals his people from their sins’) (CH II.12, p. 122); cf. the Old Saxon cognate in the poem Heliand. Lexical changes, notably the omission of the personal pronoun
illi (‘to them’) (Mt. 22.37) and the compression of the phrase
universa lex […]
et prophetae to
eall seo æ (Mt. 22.40), contribute to the overall streamlining of the gospel narrative. We will see similar translation techniques taken to much greater lengths – with far more significant implications for sense – in the subsequent translation of the Heptateuch. This conservative but communicative approach to biblical translation characterises the
Wessex Gospels as a whole. Indeed, the most striking difference between the
Wessex Gospels and the other major biblical translations discussed in this book is the translators’ consistently faithful approach to the scriptural source.
Those small expansions that do occur in the Wessex Gospels are invariably provided to clarify sense. Hence, for example, in translating Matthew 27.46, the Old English expands the Vulgate’s adjectival phrase hoc est to þæt is on englisc:
et circa horam nonam, clamavit Iesus voce magna, dicens: ‘Heli, Heli, lema sabacthani?’ Hoc est, Deus meus, Deus meus, ut quid dereliquisti me?’
[And about the ninth hour, Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying: ‘Eli, Eli, lamma sabacthani?’ That is, ‘My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?’]
And ymbe þa nygoðan tid clypode se Hælend mycelre stefne and þuss cwæð: ‘Heli Heli lema zabandi.
Þæt ys on englisc, ‘Min god, min god, to hwi forlete þu me?’
11 Liuzza, ed., Gospels, I, p. 60.[And about the ninth hour the Saviour cried with a loud voice and said thus: ‘Heli Heli lema zabandi.’ That is in English, ‘My God, my God, why have you abandoned me?’]
(Emphases added)
A similarly exegetical style, in which clarity of meaning and avoidance of ambiguity are paramount, is adopted in the translation of Matthew 27.33,
et venerunt in locum qui dicitur Golgotha, quod est Calvariae locus (‘And they came to the place that is called Golgotha, which is the place of Calvary’), as
Ða comon hig on þa stowe þe is genemned Golgotha, þæt is heafodpannan stowe (‘Then they came to that place that is called Golgotha, which is the place of the skull’).
12 The Lindisfarne gloss on Matthew 22.33 has heafudponnes styd ꝉ stowa; Rushworth has heafodpanne stouwstede. The accounts of the crucifixion in Mark 15.22, Luke 23.33 and John 19.17 also have heafodpannena stow, as do the glosses, while a Palm Sunday homily in MS Bodley 340 has heafodbollan stow. In all these grammatical, syntactical and lexical choices, the translators of the
Wessex Gospels endeavour to bring the full meaning of the source to the reader in English instead of presenting them with a guide to the wording of the Vulgate Latin.
In Steiner’s terminology, this fidelity to the source ‘affirms’ the pre-eminence of the Gospels among all the books of the Bible.
13 For Steiner’s theory of translation, see above, p. xiii. Hence, the rendering of the opening of the Gospel of Matthew retains the fourteen-generation genealogy of Christ (Mt. 1–17) in its entirety – as we shall see, the translators of the Heptateuch would take a much more selective approach to their Old Testament sources, typically omitting long genealogies and lists of names and places deemed irrelevant to the audience.
14 See Chapter Four, pp. 164–5. This same close adherence to the content of the source-text is maintained in the opening section of the gospel narrative proper that follows, in which as many elements of the source text as possible are ‘plundered’ and subsequently ‘incorporated’ into English. The Latin text from the Vulgate reads:
Mt. 1.18 Christi autem generatio sic erat. Cum esset desponsata mater eius Maria Ioseph, antequam convenirent inventa est in utero habens de Spiritu Sancto. 19 Ioseph autem vir eius cum esset iustus et nollet eam traducere voluit occulte dimittere eam. 20 Haec autem eo cogitante, ecce angelus Domini in somnis apparuit ei dicens: ‘Ioseph fili David noli timere accipere Mariam coniugem tuam quod enim in ea natum est de Spiritu Sancto est. 21 Pariet autem filium et vocabis nomen eius Iesum ipse enim salvum faciet populum suum a peccatis eorum.’ 22 Hoc autem totum factum est ut adimpleretur id quod dictum est a Domino per prophetam dicentem: 23 ‘Ecce virgo in utero habebit et pariet filium et vocabunt nomen eius Emmanuhel quod est interpretatum: Nobiscum Deus.’ 24 Exsurgens autem Ioseph a somno, fecit sicut praecepit ei angelus Domini, et accepit coniugem suam. 25 Et non cognoscebat eam donec peperit filium suum primogenitum: et vocavit nomen eius Iesum.
[1.18 Now the generation of Christ was in this manner. When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child, of the Holy Ghost. 19 Whereupon Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing publicly to expose her, was minded to put her away privately. 20 But while he thought on these things, behold the Angel of the Lord appeared to him in his sleep, saying: ‘Joseph, son of David, fear not to take unto you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her, is of the Holy Ghost. 21 And she shall bring forth a son: and you shall call his name Jesus. For he shall save his people from their sins.’ 22 Now all this was done that it might be fulfilled which the Lord spoke by the prophet, saying: 23 ‘Behold a virgin shall be with child, and bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.’ 24 And Joseph rising up from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him, and took unto him his wife. 25 And he knew her not till she brought forth her first-born son: and he called his name Jesus.]
As is the case throughout the
Wessex Gospels, each individual biblical verse is carefully rendered into English in full,
as the translator sticks very closely to the wording of the Latin source while freely altering the syntax and grammar to produce fluent Old English prose:
15 Alliteration is marked in bold, alterations of the Latin source are in italics, expansions in the Old English underlined.1.18 Soðlice þus wæs Cristes cneores: Đa þæs Hælendes modor Maria wæs Iosepe beweddod, ær hi tosomne becomun, heo wæs gemet on innoðe hæbbende of þam Halegan Gaste. 19 Soðlice Iosep hyre wer, ða he wæs rihtwis and nolde hi gewidmærsian, he wolde hi dihlice forlætan. 20 Him þa soðlice ðas þing ðencendum Drihtnes engel on swefnum ætywde, and him to cwæð: ‘Iosep, Dauides sunu, nelle þu ondrædan Marian þine gemæccean to onfonne; þæt on hire acenned ys, hyt ys of þam Halgan Gaste. 21 Witodlice heo cenð sunu, and þu nemst hys naman Hælend; he soðlice hys folc hal gedeð fram hyra synnum.’ 22 Soþlice eal þys wæs geworden þæt gefylled wære þæt fram Drihtne gecweden wæs þurh þone witegan. 23 Soðlice seo fæmne hæfð on innoðe, and heo cenð sunu, and hi nemnað his naman Emanuhel, þæt ys gereht on ure geþeode: ‘God mid us.’ 24 Đa aras Iosep of swefene, and dyde swa Drihtnes engel him bebead, and he onfeng his gemæccean; 25 and he ne grette hi. Heo cende hyre frumcennedan sunu, and nemde hys naman Hælend.
[1.18 Truly Christ’s generation was in this manner. When as the Saviour’s mother Mary was wedded to Joseph, before they came together, she became pregnant of the Holy Ghost. 19 Truly Joseph her man, being that he was righteous and did not wish to expose her, he wished to put her away privately. 20 While he truly was thinking on these things the Angel of the Lord appeared to him in sleep, and said to him: ‘Joseph, David’s son, fear not to take unto you Mary your wife; for that which is conceived in her, it is of the Holy Ghost. 21 Certainly she shall bring forth a son, and you shall call his name Saviour; he truly shall save his people from their sins.’ 22 Truly all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was said by the Lord through the prophet. 23 Truly the virgin has become pregnant, and she shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, that is interpreted in our language: ‘God with us.’ 24 Then Joseph arose from sleep, and did just as the Lord’s angel commanded him, and he took his wife; 25 and he knew her not. She brought forth her first-born son, and he called his name Saviour.]
Minor alterations of wording, such as the omission of the verb of speech,
dicentem,
at the end of verse 22, are driven by the translator’s desire to convey the sense of the source as clearly as possible in the target language. However, the omission of the conjunction
donec (‘till’) in verse 25 may be, as Liuzza suggests, ‘a doctrinally-motivated omission’,
16 Liuzza, ed. Gospels, II, p. 61. intended to downplay any potentially confusing or controversial elements of the Virgin Birth for readers who might struggle to grasp its full spiritual meaning. As noted above, the translator consistently uses the epithet
Hælend (‘Saviour’) to refer to Christ in place of the Latin personal pronoun
eius (verse 18) and the personal name
Iesum (verses 21 and 25).
17 See above, p. 94. A rare addition to the Latin source appears in verse 23, where the phrase
quod est interpretatum (‘which being interpreted is’) is expanded to
þæt ys gereht on ure geþeode (‘that is interpreted in our language’), emphasising the work’s own status as a translation; by comparison, the Lindisfarne and Rushworth glosses have simply
ðæt is getræht and
þæt is gereht respectively.
Despite the translator’s primary concern with conveying the meaning of the source as accurately as possible, their sense of literary style is also on display in this passage. For example, alliteration is used sparingly but effectively to create memorable word pairings (Crist/acenned; modor/Maria; forð/faran; nemnede/naman). More striking is the consistent front-placement of the adverb soðlice (‘truly’) at the beginning of many biblical verses to render a variety of Latin terms, most commonly the conjunction autem (‘but, now, then’) in verses 18, 19, 20, 22 and once for the interjection ecce (‘behold’) in verse 23, a term glossed in both Lindisfarne and Rushworth as he(o)nu. On one occasion, in verse 21, the translator varies this practice by rendering autem as witodlice (‘certainly, indeed’), before reintroducing soðlice for enim (‘for’) in the second cola of the same verse; here the translation is closest to the Lindisfarne gloss which renders autem in this verse first as witodlice and then as soðlice.
This combination of precise, conservative translation and a modest sense of literary style is evident throughout the Wessex Gospels. The rendering of Matthew’s account of Christ’s Passion, the climactic moment in biblical and Christian history, provides a good illustration of this careful but confident approach to scriptural translation. The Vulgate version of Matthew 27.35–54 reads:
35 Postquam autem crucifixerunt eum, diviserunt vestimenta eius, sortem mittentes: ut impleretur quod dictum est per prophetam dicentem: ‘Diviserunt sibi uestimenta mea, et super uestem meam miserunt sortem.’ 36 Et sedentes servabant eum. 37 Et inposuerunt super caput eius causam ipsius scriptam: ‘Hic est Iesus rex Iudaeorum.’ 38 Tunc crucifixi sunt cum eo duo latrones: unus a dextris, et unus a sinistris. 39 Praetereuntes autem blasphemabant eum moventes capita sua, 40 et dicentes: ‘Vah! qui destruis templum Dei, et in triduo illud reaedificas: salva temet ipsum: si Filius Dei es, descende de cruce.’ 41 Similiter et principes sacerdotum inludentes cum scribis et senioribus dicebant: 42 ‘Alios salvos fecit, se ipsum non potest salvum facere: si rex Israhel est, descendat nunc de cruce, et credemus ei. 43 Confidit in Deo; liberet nunc, si vult, dixit enim quia: “Filius Dei sum”.’ 44 Id ipsum autem et latrones, qui crucifixi erant cum eo, inproperabant ei. 45 A sexta autem hora tenebrae factae sunt super universam terram usque ad horam nonam. 46 Et circa horam nonam clamavit Iesus voce magna, dicens: ‘Heli, Heli, lemma sabacthani?’ hoc est: ‘Deus meus, Deus meus, ut quid dereliquisti me?’ 47 Quidam autem illic stantes, et audientes, dicebant: ‘Eliam vocat iste.’ 48 Et continuo currens unus ex eis, acceptam spongiam implevit aceto, et inposuit harundini, et dabat ei bibere. 49 Ceteri vero dicebant: ‘Sine, videamus an veniat Elias liberans eum.’ 50 Iesus autem iterum clamans voce magna, emisit spiritum. 51 Et ecce velum templi scissum est in duas partes a summo usque deorsum: et terra mota est, et petrae scissae sunt, 52 et monumenta aperta sunt: et multa corpora sanctorum, qui dormierant, surrexerunt. 53 Et exeuntes de monumentis post resurrectionem eius, venerunt in sanctam civitatem, et apparuerunt multis. 54 Centurio autem, et qui cum eo erant, custodientes Iesum, viso terraemotu, et his quae fiebant, timuerunt valde, dicentes: ‘Vere Dei Filius erat iste.’
[35 And after they had crucified him, they divided his garments, casting lots; that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying: ‘They divided my garments among them; and upon my vesture they cast lots.’ 36 And they sat and watched him. 37 And they put over his head his cause written: ‘This is Jesus the King of the Jews.’ 38 Then were crucified with him two thieves: one on the right hand, and one on the left. 39 And they that passed by, blasphemed him, wagging their heads, 40 And saying: ‘Look! You who destroyed the temple of God, and in three days rebuilt it: save your own self: if you are the Son of God, come down from the cross.’ 41 In like manner also the chief priests, with the scribes and ancients, mocking, said: 42 ‘He saved others; himself he cannot save. If he is the king of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him. 43 He trusted in God; let him now deliver him if he will have him; for he said: “I am the Son of God.”’44 And the selfsame thing the thieves also, that were crucified with him, reproached him. 45 Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over the whole earth, until the ninth hour. 46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying: ‘Eli, Eli, lamma sabacthani?’; that is, ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’ 47 And some that stood there and heard, said: ‘This man calls Elias.’ 48 And immediately one of them running took a sponge, and filled it with vinegar; and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink. 49 And the others said: ‘Let be, let us see whether Elias will come to deliver him.’ 50 And Jesus again crying with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost. 51 And behold the veil of the temple was rent in two from the top even to the bottom, and the earth quaked, and the rocks were rent. 52 And the graves were opened: and many bodies of the saints that had slept arose, 53 and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection, came into the holy city, and appeared to many. 54 Now the centurion and they that were with him watching Jesus, having seen the earthquake, and the things that were done, were sore afraid, saying: ‘Indeed, this was the Son of God.’]
In keeping with the reverential approach to the source text that characterises the Wessex Gospels, the translator sticks very closely to the wording of the Vulgate in this passage, save for the consistent use of hælynd for Iesus and the reference to the englisc language noted above; further alterations are highlighted in italics and expansions are underlined:
35 Soþlice æfter þam þe hig hyne
on rode ahengon hig todældon hys reaf: and wurpon hlot þærofer þæt wære gefylled þæt ðe gecweden wæs þurh ðone witegan and þus cwæð: ‘Hig todældon heom mine reaf, and ofer mine reaf hig wurpon hlot.’
36 And hig beheoldon hyne sittende,
37 and hig asetton ofer hys heafod hys
gylt
þuss awritene: ‘Ðis ys se Hælynd Iudea Cyning.’
38 Ða wæron ahangen mid him twegen sceaþan an on þa swiðran healfe and oðer on þa wynstran.
39 Witodlice þa wegferendan hyne bysmeredon and cwehton heora heafod
40 and
cwædon: ‘Wa þæt ðes towyrpð godes templ, and on þrim dagum hyt eft getimbrað. Gehæl
nu þe sylfne. Gyf þe sy Godes Sunu, ga nyþer of þære rode.’
41 Eac sacerda ealdras hyne bysmerdon mid þam bocerum and mid þam ealdrum and
cwædun:
42 ‘Oþere he gehælde and hyne sylfne gehælan ne mæg. Gyf he Israhela Cyning sy, ga nu nyþer of þære rode and we gelyfað hym.
43 He gelyfð on God. Alyse he hyne nu gyf he wylle.
Witodlice he sæde, “Godes Sunu ic eom.”’
44 Gelice þa sceaðan þe mid him ahangene wæron, hyne hyspdun.
45 Witodlice fram þære sixtan tide wæron gewurden þystru ofer ealle eorðan oþ þa nigoþan tide.
46 And ymbe þa nygoðan tid clypode
se Hælend mycelre stefne and þuss cwæð: ‘Heli Heli, lema zabandi.’ Þæt is
on Englisc, ‘Min God, min God to hwi forlete þu me.’
47 Soþlice sume þa ðe þær stodon and þis gehyrdon cwædon: ‘Nu he clypað Heliam.’
48 Ða hrædlice
arn an heora and genam ane spongean and fylde hig mid ecede and asette an hreod þæron and sealde hym drincan.
49 Witodlice þa oðre cwædon: ‘Læt utun geseon hwæþer Helias cume
and wylle hyne alysan.’
50 Þa clypode
se Hælynd eft micelre stefne and asende
hys gast.
51 And þærrihte ðæs temples wahryft wearð tosliten on twegen dælas, fram ufeweardon oð nyþeweard. And seo eorð
bifode and stanas to
burston,
52 and byrgena wurdun geopenode, and manige halige lichaman ðe ær slepon aryson.
53 And þa
hig uteodon of þam byrgenum æfter hys æryste hig comun on þa haligan ceastre and æteowdon hig manegum.
54 Witodlice þæs hundredes ealdor and ða þe mid him wæron healdende
þone Hælynd, þa hig gesawon þa eorðbifunge and þa ðing ðe þær gewurdon, hig ondredon heom ðearle and cwædon: ‘Soðlice Godes Sunu wæs þes […].’
18 Liuzza, ed. Gospels, I, p. 60. [35 Truly after they had hanged him on a cross, they divided his garment, and they cast lots thereover that it might be fulfilled that which was spoken by the prophet, and thus said: ‘They divided my garments among them, and upon my garments they cast lots. ‘ 36 And they beheld him sitting. 37 And they put over his head his charge thus written: ‘This is the Saviour, King of the Jews.’ 38 Then were hanged with him two thieves, one on the right side and the other on the left. 39 Indeed, those that passed by mocked him and shook their heads 40 and they said, ‘Alas! You that destroy God’s temple, and in three days afterwards rebuild it, now save yourself: if you are God’s son, come down from the cross.’ 41 Also the chief priests mocked him, with the scribes and the ancients, and said: 42 ‘He saved others, and he cannot save himself. If he is the king of Israel, come down from the cross and we will believe him. 43 He trusted in God; let him now deliver him if he wishes; indeed, he said: “I am God’s son.”’ 44 Likewise the thieves that were hanged with him; they mocked him. 45 Indeed from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour. 46 And about the ninth hour the Saviour called out with a great voice and said thus: ‘Heli Heli lema zabandi.’ That is in English: ‘My God, my God, who have you forsaken me?’ 47 Truly some of those that stood there and heard this said: ‘Now he calls Elias.’ 48 Then immediately one of them ran and took a sponge and filled it with vinegar and put it on a reed thereon and gave him to drink. 49 Indeed then the others said: ‘Let be, let us see whether Elias will come and wish to deliver him.’ 50 Then the Saviour cried out again with a great voice and sent his ghost. 51 And straightaway the temple’s curtain was rent into two parts, from the top to the bottom. And the earth trembled and stones burst. 52 And graves were opened, and many holy bodies that slept there before arose, 53 and then they came out of those tombs after his resurrection, they came into the holy city, and appeared to many. 54 Indeed, the centurion and those that were with him guarding the Saviour, when they saw the earthquake and those things that happened there, they were greatly afraid and said: ‘Truly this was God’s son.’]
In order to incorporate the source-text into the target language and to bring its meaning across as effectively as possible, a number of small alterations of syntax and minor grammatical adjustments are made by the translator. Hence, the tense of a Latin verb is sometimes altered to produce idiomatic English (e.g. verse 48: currens > arn), while on other occasions a personal pronoun denoted by the inflection of a Latin verb is inserted in the English translation for the sake of clarity (e.g. verse 50: emisit spiritum > asende hys gast). The cumulative effect of these many small but significant translation choices is the total transformation of the Vulgate source into highly readable, fluent Old English prose. The Wessex Gospels can thus be viewed as a step beyond Farman’s prose-like gloss on the Rushworth Gospels, accurately conveying the meaning of the entire gospel text to the reader while effectively displacing the Latin source. Unlike most of the other biblical translations considered in this book, remarkably few compensatory measures are taken: alliteration and parallel phrasing, for instance, do not feature in this passage (except in verse 51: And seo eorð bifode and stanas toburston), though we saw above that these techniques are occasionally used elsewhere in the translation.
Purpose and readership
The circumstances behind the composition of the Wessex Gospels are unknown and can only be guessed at from the evidence of (mostly later) manuscript witnesses and the team’s translation strategy. In several manuscripts, gospel passages excerpted for use in the mass (pericopes) are marked up in Latin. Figure 7 shows the opening of the Gospel of Matthew
from an eleventh-century manuscript, Cambridge Corpus Christi College 140 (MS Cp), with the end of Christ’s genealogy and the beginning of the narrative of the Nativity (Mt. 1.13–2.9).
19 Images of Cambridge Corpus Christi College 140 are available online at: https://parker.stanford.edu/parker/catalog/ks656dq8163.~
~
Figure 7. Cambridge Corpus Christi College MS 140, fols 2v–3r, ʼWessex Gospels: opening of Gospel of Matthew with Latin headings in red’.
Figure 7. Cambridge Corpus Christi College MS 140, fols 2v–3r, ʼWessex Gospels: opening of Gospel of Matthew with Latin headings in red’ (above and opposite).
The main Old English gospel text is written in a late Anglo-Saxon square minuscule hand of the first half of the eleventh century. The first words of each chapter have been inserted in Latin in red ink (
Cum esset desponsata above Mt. 1.18 midway down fol. 2
v;
Cum natus esset iesus in bethleem above Mt. 2.1 a third of the way down fol. 3
r) in ‘a nearly contemporary hand’.
20 Ker, p. 47. These Latin headings were only supplied for the opening of the Gospel of Matthew (Mt. 1–5). In the right-hand margin of fol. 3
r the Latin heading
Ca. 2 (‘chapter 2’) appears next to the text of Mt. 2.1 (fig. 7), indicating that the pericope begins here. Another manuscript copy of the
Wessex Gospels,
MS Bodley 441 (
c. 1000–1050), features Latin pericope markers written in a Caroline minuscule roughly contemporary with that of the main hand as well as Old English rubrics inserted by a sixteenth-century hand copying from Cambridge University Library Ii.2.11 (MS A).
21 Ker, p. 376. Archbishop Parker’s scribes used this volume as the base text for the edition presented by John Foxe to Queen Elizabeth I in 1571; on Foxe’s edition of the Wessex Gospels, see Conclusion, pp. 250–1. The text of Mt. 7.28 begins halfway down fol. 11
v with a large red capital
Ð (fig. 8). The Old English rubric squeezed in above Mt. 7.28 reads:
Ðys sceal on þone þryddan sunnan dæg ofer epiphan(us) (‘This is for the third Sunday after Epiphany’), while the Latin heading in the left-hand margin,
Ca. viii (chapter 8), indicates that the pericope begins here at Mt. 8.1.
~
Figure 8. Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Bodley 441, fol. 11v, ‘Wessex Gospels: Mt. 7–8 with Old English rubric and Latin pericope marker’.
In both these manuscript witnesses of the
Wessex Gospels, the page was not originally ruled to include the Latin pericope markers or the Old English rubrics, all of which are later additions. Indeed, Ursula Lenker has shown how, at some point after the initial translation was made, the ‘clean’ text of the
Wessex Gospels was combined with the Roman pericope system, perhaps at Exeter during the episcopacy of Leofric (1050–72).
22 Ursula Lenker, ‘The West Saxon Gospels and the Gospel Lectionary in Anglo-Saxon England: Manuscript Evidence and Liturgical Practice’, ASE 28 (1999), 141–78, at 149. As Lenker notes, the combination of the text of the
Wessex Gospels with this standard liturgical system could have assisted ‘a preacher trying to elucidate the deeper meaning of the gospel text’, while ‘the text of the West Saxon Gospels may indeed have been read to the congregation during the mass – instead of or as part of a homily’.
23 Lenker, ‘The West Saxon Gospels and the Gospel Lectionary in Anglo-Saxon England’, 173–4. On the basis of these headings and other Latin additions in multiple manuscript copies of the
Wessex Gospels,
it has been proposed that the original translation itself
was made primarily for liturgical usage rather than for private reading.
24 See M. Grünberg, ed., The West-Saxon Gospels: A Study of the Gospel of Saint Matthew with Text of the Four Gospels (Amsterdam: Scheltema and Holkema, 1967) for the argument that the Wessex Gospels are based on an earlier Mercian gloss. Hence Roy Liuzza has argued that the
Wessex Gospels were designed ‘to aid the secular priest’s exposition of the Gospel pericope’, serving ‘as a gloss on a received Latin liturgical reading rather than as an independent text’.
25 Roy M. Liuzza, ‘Who Read the Gospels in Old English?’, in Words and Works: Studies in Medieval English Language and Literature in Honour of Fred C. Robinson, ed. Peter S. Baker and Nicholas Howe (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1998), pp. 3–24, at 14–15. Nevertheless, Liuzza acknowledges that this prose translation of the Gospels ‘began as an independent vernacular version’ which was ‘originally free-standing’, to which Latin liturgical headings were subsequently added in stages.
26 Liuzza, ‘Who Read the Gospels in Old English?’, pp. 12–13. Like the
Prose Psalms, then, and the translation of the Heptateuch considered in the next chapter, the
Wessex Gospels appear to have been originally conceived as a free-standing biblical translation made for private reading.
Richard Marsden suggests that the
Wessex Gospels ‘were probably used mainly by monks and clerics, to help them in their doctrinal studies or in the learning of Latin, and also by a few devout and wealthy lay people’.
27 Marsden, ‘New Testament’, p. 236. Robert Stanton makes a stronger case for lay readership, noting that despite the presence of Latin headings in the late manuscript witnesses, there is no continuous Latin text in the translation itself:
The English version could certainly be read by someone checking the Latin carefully as he went; but equally, its fullness, accuracy, and readability would have allowed it to be read on its own by someone with deficient Latin. […]. A full prose version
is a potential substitute in a way that a gloss is not.
[…] A complete English prose version was eminently suitable for private reading, perhaps for a wealthy lay patron.
28 Stanton, Culture of Translation, p. 130.The analysis of translation style presented above, in particular the syntactical independence of the Old English text from the Latin source, and the absence of Latin words in the original Old English text which might serve as cues, substantiates Stanton’s suggestion that the Wessex Gospels were designed to serve as an independent, free-standing prose translation for private reading. The absence of interpretive passages, such as those found in the introductions to the Prose Psalms or the exegetical passages included especially in the Ælfrician sections of the Heptateuch, indicates that the reader(s) who commissioned the translation wanted a ‘clean’ text of the Gospels, unencumbered by exegetical tools or liturgical prompts. Such a clean but accurate and readable translation of the Gospels might have appealed to a pious lay reader, perhaps one of the beneficiaries of Alfred’s drive to educate the sons of freeborn men in English letters or a secular priest who wished to read the Gospels in private, either as inspiration for composing homilies or for their own spiritual edification. Within an aristocratic household, a chaplain might have read excerpts from such a gospel translation to his noble patron and other family members. Although monastic readers may have used the Wessex Gospels in lectio divina as a stimulus to prayer, the marked independence of the translation from its Vulgate source suggests that its primary audience lay outside the walls of the monastery.
As a major piece of Old English biblical prose designed to be read independently of the Vulgate source rather than as an aid to the study of Latin, the Wessex Gospels sit at a midway point between the Alfredian renderings of the Psalms and Laws and the translation of the Heptateuch made around the turn of the millennium. Together these ambitious Old English prose translations made key parts of Scripture accessible to a wide range of English readers, extending the learning of the monastery into the private houses and spiritual lives of the nobility. This widening of access to scriptural translation did not come without risks: making the Bible available to readers who were untrained in exegesis could lead to misunderstanding and misinterpretation, which in turn could lead Christians into sin. The final section of this chapter will consider how Ælfric produced his Catholic Homilies in the late tenth century to provide the laity with the exegetical framework that the Wessex Gospels and other anonymous homilies lack. Before turning to Ælfric, however, I will briefly discuss the translation of two apocryphal gospels into Old English prose in this period.