DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.49369#0184
1. The Prayer of Moses.
The Prayer of Moses bears upon it the marks of being a
fragment of a larger work. The word ‘adhuc’ in the first line
seems to show that the speaker is here asking the last of a long
series of questions; and again the unexplained word ‘ tempus ’
is so introduced as to suggest that it has already been the subject
of discussion. There may possibly be a gap between the words
‘in gloria’ and ‘et mortuus est’: at least, the MS. indicates the
beginning of a new paragraph here by placing the E of ‘Et’ just
outside the line, contrary to its habit.
Next, it appears to me that this fragment is a translation from
a Greek original: two words seem to indicate this more especially,—
‘ unanimes ’ which seems to be a rendering of όμοθυμαΰόν, and
‘ militum ’ which means ‘ the hosts of heaven ’ and probably stands
for στρατιών or στρατευμάτων.
If these two positions be correct, we have further to inquire
whether we can determine the source of the fragment, and assign
a reason for its occurrence in an eleventh century MS.
I may say at once that I believe it to be a fragment of the
conclusion of the Assumptio Moyseos; the text has most likely
been shortened, just as the text of the Latin fragment of Enoch
given above has been shortened, and only just enough has been
retained to make the extract intelligible. Probably also, as we
shall see, the calculation of dates has been altered from the original
text. It is an obvious and a tempting conjecture to assign this
new fragment to an old and famous book, but I really do not see
any other probable origin for it. And, short as the extract is, it
contains several points of connexion with the Assumptio.
In the first place, we are sure that a Latin version of that book
existed, for we possess a considerable portion of it. The Graecisms
The Prayer of Moses bears upon it the marks of being a
fragment of a larger work. The word ‘adhuc’ in the first line
seems to show that the speaker is here asking the last of a long
series of questions; and again the unexplained word ‘ tempus ’
is so introduced as to suggest that it has already been the subject
of discussion. There may possibly be a gap between the words
‘in gloria’ and ‘et mortuus est’: at least, the MS. indicates the
beginning of a new paragraph here by placing the E of ‘Et’ just
outside the line, contrary to its habit.
Next, it appears to me that this fragment is a translation from
a Greek original: two words seem to indicate this more especially,—
‘ unanimes ’ which seems to be a rendering of όμοθυμαΰόν, and
‘ militum ’ which means ‘ the hosts of heaven ’ and probably stands
for στρατιών or στρατευμάτων.
If these two positions be correct, we have further to inquire
whether we can determine the source of the fragment, and assign
a reason for its occurrence in an eleventh century MS.
I may say at once that I believe it to be a fragment of the
conclusion of the Assumptio Moyseos; the text has most likely
been shortened, just as the text of the Latin fragment of Enoch
given above has been shortened, and only just enough has been
retained to make the extract intelligible. Probably also, as we
shall see, the calculation of dates has been altered from the original
text. It is an obvious and a tempting conjecture to assign this
new fragment to an old and famous book, but I really do not see
any other probable origin for it. And, short as the extract is, it
contains several points of connexion with the Assumptio.
In the first place, we are sure that a Latin version of that book
existed, for we possess a considerable portion of it. The Graecisms