Bibliotheca Arnamagnæana - 01.06.1979, Qupperneq 266

250
translations were Gisli Jonsson’s work. The two men who have worked
most in this field, however — Påll Eggert diason and Christian
Westergård-Nielsen — agree that what the Bible Society manuscript
contains is not a translation by Gisli but a copy of a translation made by
Oddur Gottskålksson.13 This translation of the Prophets is essentially
the same as that which was later included in the Gudbrandsbiblia,14 and
in the preface to his translation of Vitus Theodorus’ Summaria yfer pad
Gamla Testamentid (Nupufell, 1591), Gudbrandur says that in his Bible
he made use of translations by others, namely
Nouum Testamentum og nockrar adrar fleire Bækur hins gamla Testamentis,
sem vt hefr lagt Oddr heitinn Gottskalkson godrar minningar.15
The Bible Society manuscript does not contain the preface to Daniel, nor
those to the minor prophets, and this supports Westergård-Nielsen’s
argument that the Daniel-preface in the Gudbrandsbiblia bears the
marks of Gudbrandur’s own style. The picture that emerges
from these various bits of evidence is this: Gudbrandur took the main
text of all the Prophets, the general preface to the Prophets, and the
prefaces to Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel from the text represented by the
Bible Society manuscript, very likely the work of Oddur Gottskålksson;
the preface to Daniel (and those to the minor prophets?) he translated
himself.
If Gisli Jdnsson did not translate the text which we find in the Bible
Society manuscript, he becomes an even more likely candidate as the
translator of the AM 696 fragment, for this would then be the only extant
witness to the translation of the Prophets which he is declared to have
made.16
13 PEd, Menn og menntir, II (Reykjavik, 1922), pp. 564-67; Westergård-Nielsen. loc. cit. (note 11
above). PEO’s argument is based on two facts: (1) a note at the end of the manuscript says that it was
“written”, not “translated”, at Skålholt in 1574-75, and (2) a passage from Isaiah 53, quoted by
Henderson from the Bible Society manuscript, corresponds exactly to Oddur’s translation of the same
passage in Historia Pinunnar (Copenhagen, 1558). Westergård-Nielsen says that “specielle kriterier”,
which he hopes to discuss in a later article, support PEO’s argument.
14 See the parallel passages from Isaiah 53 printed by Henderson, II, 277-78.
15 Cited from Halldor Hermannsson loc. cit. (note 12 above).
16 Påll Eggert Olason, however, is sceptical of the rumors about Gisli’s Biblical translations; see
Menn og menntir, II, pp. 565-66.