Gripla - 01.01.2000, Side 83

THE BOOK OF JUDITH
81
in manuscripts and charters from Northem Iceland, for instance in 573
(Louis-Jensen 1963:xxxii), and, to a lesser degree, in manuscripts from the
Breiðafjörður area. The sound-change seems, therefore, to have been con-
fined to Northem and Westem Iceland, although scarcity of written docu-
ments from other parts of the country means that one should be careful in
drawing far-reaching conclusions from this evidence (Oresnik 1982:185-186,
Stefán Karlsson 1982:61). The fact that æ but not iæ is written in “uægdir”
(8v40) suggests that the nasal consonant following the æ dictates the spelling.
A more detailed analysis of the orthography of the scribes will not be at-
tempted here. The orthography is, in general, consistent with practices in the
latter half of the fourteenth century.3
3. The Book of Judith in the Middle Ages
The Icelandic version of the Book of Judith found in 764 is clearly a transla-
tion of the Vulgate text, which differs markedly from both Old Latin versions
and the Septuagint. Much uncertainty surrounds the original language of Ju-
dith but the Septuagint version is thought to be a translation from Hebrew
(Moore 1985:66, Bogaert 1999:246). The Old Latin versions, in tum, are
based on the Septuagint (Voigt 1925:13-14, Bogaert 1999:246-247). An even
greater controversy surrounds the origins of the Vulgate text, which is the
work of Jerome, accompanied by his preface. It is neither a translation of the
Greek text nor, it seems, of a Hebrew one. Jerome himself claims to have
used an Aramaic (Chaldean) text for his translation and comparative analysis
appears to confírm this (Voigt 1925:52-54). There are, however, numerous
correspondences between the Vulgate and the Old Latin versions which have
been explained variously as a case of the Vulgate contaminating the Old
Latin, which only exists in relatively late manuscripts (Voigt 1925:42-44, 50-
52), or by supposing that Jerome used an Old Latin text as well as the Ara-
maic text for his translation (Dubarle 1966:44, Bogaert 1999:247). The matter
is further obscured by the fact that Jerome’s method in translating the text
was most likely characterised by paraphrase rather than a word-for-word ren-
dering. The Vulgate version omits many passages contained in the Septuagint
and Old Latin texts but there are also some additions which are not found in
otherextant versions (Moore 1985:99-100, Bogaert 1999:247).
3
A more detailed description of the scribes responsible for the fírst half of 764 and their ortho-
graphy is found in my Ph.D. thesis, where the scribes responsible for the Judith text are
referred to as C, D and E.