Introduction This fascicle presents papers given at a workshop devoted to biblical quotations in patristic texts at the Sixteenth International Conference on Patristic Studies held in Oxford in August 2011, which brought together representatives from four European institutes and research projects active in this field: the speakers were Laurence Mellerin from Sources Chrétiennes in Lyon (Biblindex), Hugh Houghton from the Institute for Textual Scholarship and Electronic Editing in Birmingham (the International Greek New Testament project and the Vetus Latina Iohannes), Bas ter Haar Romeny from the Leiden Peshitta Institute and Claudia Wick of the Thesaurus Linguae Latinae. Additional contributions have been supplied from further initiatives run by two of these institutes: the seminar series of the Institut des Sources Chrétiennes in Lyon and the Seventh Birmingham Colloquium on the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, held in April 2011, which focussed on Christian writers and the New Testament text. The Oxford workshop aimed to enable research teams from different countries, whose work involves the identification and analysis of biblical quotations in patristic texts, to share experiences and allow the audience to have an open discussion about methodological problems. Both patristic and biblical scholars took part in order to consider how common tools could be developed to serve different purposes, such as the history of exegesis or a critical edition of biblical texts. The initiative for the gathering was provided by the Biblindex project, http://www.biblindex.org, developed mainly by Sources Chrétiennes in Lyon (France), precisely because Biblindex aims to provide a common tool at the junction of these two research areas: biblical textual scholarship, assembling and analysing evidence to produce a critical edition, and patristic and linguistic studies, investigating the understanding and use of the Bible in the writings of ancient authors. As an index of biblical references found in both Western and Eastern Christian literature, at present covering the four first centuries but with the intention of extending over the whole of Late Antiquity and the early Middle Ages, Biblindex seeks to be a source of information for users looking for an exhaustive list of the forms in which a specific Bible verse has been quoted, as well as for those investigating the Bible of any given Father. The other projects involve the assembly of subsets of this material with a particular editorial goal. For the Vetus Latina Iohannes, the aim was to gather the full text of all Latin quotations of the Gospel according to John in authors up to the age of Bede, in order to see whether they transmit evidence of versions no longer preserved in gospel manuscripts and to trace the diffusion of different text forms in Christian authors. The work towards a new edition of the Peshitta in Leiden is based on a similar principle but using the corpus of Syriac authors. In the case of the Thesaurus Linguae Latinae, quotations of the Latin Bible provide examples of the development of the Latin language, particularly in relation to the translation and adoption of concepts deriving from Greek, and the integration of this vocabulary in subsequent authors. Research on the significance of individual Greek and Latin authors for the biblical text, and differing practices in referring to and quoting Scripture, is represented in the selection of additional papers included in this volume. 1.Common goals and aspects Although each of the projects represented here encounters difficulties specific to its corpus, these differences are less significant than the aspects which they hold in common. All seek to link a corpus of biblical texts – collections of scriptural books which were originally written in various languages and translated early in their history – with a corpus of ancient and medieval authors, who refer to the Bible as a fixed entity yet at the same time contribute through their quotations to the form and concept of ‘the text’. Quotations in ancient authors show these biblical texts in the process of development and reception. Both types of source share similarities as well as divergences: patristic and biblical writings are transmitted in manuscripts which may be complete or fragmentary, numerous or scarce, translated or in the original language. Editions (when these exist) have been produced according to a variety of different criteria, some of which may not correspond to modern critical norms. The introduction of electronic media and tools has resulted in changes to the availability, ordering and analysis of material and the methods and manner of working which continue to be explored and developed. The first step of all our enterprises is to establish a nomenclature for these sources, e.g. providing keys to precise lists of authors and works, instituting fixed points of reference (which extends even to a concordance of different schemes of naming and dividing biblical books) and the identification of reliable critical editions and other types of relevant material. Issues associated with translation must also be addressed, affecting both biblical and patristic editions. Indeed, ancient concerns over the validity or appropriateness of a particular rendering provide significant source material for research into textual, linguistic and theological developments, although those which are preserved in patristic sources are likely only to represent a fraction of the debate which took place. Furthermore, our contemporary analysis is also constrained by the boundaries of language: although we may appeal to the meaning of the text behind its language, in order to understand how this meaning remains or changes from one language to another, we too are unable to define an absolute meaning which does not depend on the linguistic area in which it was written and used. In the case of readings or even complete works which are only preserved in translation, to what extent is it legitimate to use these as evidence for a different language tradition, through retroversion or otherwise? The multiplicity of versions poses a similar problem. Which instance of a work with various recensions should be taken as authoritative, particularly if the author was responsible for more than one? Sometimes an earlier source is transmitted only by a later writing, or editorial intervention may be detected later in the tradition which makes the original unrecoverable: even so, both provide information which cannot be ignored. Variant readings in the manuscript tradition of a patristic work may supply evidence for reconstructions of the biblical text or the Thesaurus Linguae Latinae. Certain Fathers were familiar with more than one language (such as Jerome or Tertullian) or multiple biblical versions. If a quotation in a patristic text does not match any text transmitted in biblical codices, what criteria should be used to determine whether the author is responsible for the divergences or whether they are a faithful reproduction of a form of text which no longer survives? Of course, the application of later schemes of reference (such as biblical chapter and verse numbers) to evidence from an earlier writer is an anachronism, as is the description of their text on the basis of a modern editorial reconstruction, yet it seems impossible to proceed otherwise without contributing to the fragmentation which makes the variety of traditions so difficult to reconcile in the first place. Each of the projects described here has a long history. Sources Chrétiennes inherited the archives of the Centre d’Analyse et Documentation Patristique (Faculté de théologie protestante de Strasbourg), whose work started in 1965. The patristic evidence in the Vetus Latina Iohannes is based largely on the index cards assembled by Joseph Denk at the beginning of the twentieth century and inherited by the Vetus Latina Institute in 1945. Both the International Greek New Testament Project and the Institut für neutestamentliche Textforschung in Münster were founded a few years later. The Peshitta Institute in Leiden was founded in 1959, while the Thesaurus Linguae Latinae is the oldest of all, originally begun in 1893-4 and becoming an international project in 1949. Those currently responsible for these great projects find themselves as the latest link in a long chain, following pathways which have been marked out and prepared by the painstaking labours of past generations. While such continuity provides momentum and support for modern efforts, it also creates specific problems. We have to deal with a huge amount of data gathered before the invention of computer, in the form of handwritten index cards or notebooks, microfiches, paper collations and so on. All this material has to be appropriately prepared for digital publication in ways which will, as far as possible, stand the test of time and the evolution of both hardware and software. At the same time, progress continues to be made with the publication of new critical editions of patristic texts, the discovery of new manuscripts and an improved understanding of the history and transmission of certain works. Inherited material often has a different standard of reference which requires updating, as in the use of Migne's Patrologia Graeca et Latina, while duplicates and false attributions require elimination. In order to ensure both the widest possible application of the data we now produce and its continued compatibility with future developments, decisions about the protocols to be followed and the encoding used are of the utmost importance. Even though it is not a central theme in this fascicle, the application of the XML standards set by the Text Encoding Initiative to patristic and biblical sources offers a great common perspective for our institutes. Finally, we should remember that, as editors and creators of textual resources, we have a common purpose: our goal is not the production of a monograph, but to provide researchers with access to the raw material, to the sources, with as little editorial intervention as possible. Our tools and interfaces, whether printed or electronic, need to be clear and simple, supporting both general and specific queries and returning results which are easy to interpret and well-structured results. Our goal is to be as exhaustive as possible, so that scientific conclusions based on our data can be well grounded. Furthermore, the adoption of digital media and the ensuing possibility for the interoperability of tools and the re-use of data means that we should make the most of opportunities for collaboration, in order to ensure the broadest possible coverage and create resources which will endure for future generations. 2.Summaries of contributions In the first paper of this fascicle, Laurence Mellerin, in charge of the Biblindex project, retraces the story of Biblindex and presents methodological issues to be solved during the first stage of project development. First of all, how shall the biblical corpus used by the Church Fathers be defined and how should modern collaborators or users refer to it? Two opposing goals have to be reconciled: respecting the historical tradition of biblical texts while enabling common work based on clear referentials. Shall we make a difference between allusion and quotation? How can we characterise a patristic reference to the Bible? How can we distinguish and typify the Church Fathers’ ways of introducing and changing the biblical texts? How should it be decided where a quotation begins and where it ends? How can intrabiblical relationships between verses be taken into account? Through a few case studies, Biblindex solutions are presented and submitted for discussion. As an annex to these guidelines, Guillaume Bady, responsible for the Greek corpus in Biblindex, explains in more details the pragmatic choice made of Rahlfs’ edition of the Septuagint as reference in Biblindex. Though less accurate and less extensively grounded than the edition from Göttingen, the Rahlfs’ edition might be preferred on consideration of its completeness regarding the number of books, its almost universal diffusion and even its attention towards patristic literature, as evident in the example of Daniel. In the case of alternative texts (such as Josh, Judg, Tob and Dan), the parallel information provided by Rahlfs’ edition can also be of use in determining the appropriate reference. Two attempts to apply these guidelines are then given, the first one dealing with a biblical referential, the second with the way of defining quotations in a specific patristic corpus. Guillaume Bady studies the question of integrating 3 Ezra into the biblical corpus of Biblindex. This book was excluded from Biblia Patristica despite being read and quoted by the Fathers, especially before Jerome. In Biblindex it should be taken into account, provided that it is not confused with other books and all a full account can be given of parallel texts, namely Ezra, Neh, 2 Chr 35-36, 2 Kgs 23-25. He shows that the nearly 1,400 references already provided by Biblindex clearly reflect the historical use of those books by the Fathers, even if very precise work remains to be done in order to disambiguate parallel references. Jérémy Delmulle, in charge of the integration of Augustine’s works into Biblindex, presents as a test case the analysis of biblical quotations in the treatise De Magistro, from the beginning (the choice of the reference edition, the use of the scriptural analyses already available) to the end (the choice of the biblical text to be referred to and the delimitation and typology of the quotations). The paper delivered by Hugh Houghton at the Oxford conference marked the publication of the first fascicle of the Vetus Latina Iohannes in July 2011, covering John 1:1 to 4:48. After describing the methods used to enter, check and integrate the patristic material, he considers its significance for the history of this portion of the gospel text. Unlike previous volumes in the Vetus Latina series, the preservation of numerous codices with an Old Latin affiliation means that most biblical quotations match forms of text present in the direct tradition. In fact, many of the different renderings are only found in manuscripts. For this reason, no attempt has been made to reconstruct editorial text-types based on patristic data. Although some quotations do appear to feature forms from versions otherwise lost, most of the divergences can be explained as harmonisations, paraphrases or altered forms typical of quoted material. Furthermore, the most divergent patristic quotations are those which are rendered ad hoc as part of a translated writing or Fathers who read the Gospel in Greek, in particular Tertullian and Marius Victorinus. The overall consistency of the Latin versions for these chapters suggests that all extant text may derive from a single original translation, subsequently revised in varying ways. One particularly important type of patristic reference for biblical textual criticism is an explicit reference to differing forms in manuscripts known to the author. The contribution of Amy Donaldson, however, highlights certain problems with this sort of evidence. She observes how, in many cases, observations concerning textual variation have been adopted from earlier writers regardless of the manuscripts available to a Father. In addition, ancient observation about textual variation often fall short of the precision expected in modern textual criticism. The category of ‘explicit variation’ must therefore henceforth be treated with greater caution by biblical scholars. Donaldson also underlines the broader point that no patristic author or text should be viewed in isolation from their larger literary and cultural contexts. The two other papers from those presented at the Birmingham Colloquium in 2011 address individual Fathers. Ulrich Schmid takes the example of Marcion in order to illustrate the importance of a canonical approach to biblical textual criticism, taking into consideration the nature of the collections of scriptural texts used by ancient writers. The sort of intervention ascribed to Marcion stands as a reminder of the significance of editorial activity at the earliest stages of the transmission of the New Testament. Furthermore, in the absence of a copy of the Marcionite recension of the Pauline Epistles, the evaluation of the secondary evidence preserved by Tertullian, Origen and Epiphanius becomes a vital part of the process, which is ignored by scholars at their peril. Jeffrey Kloha considers the New Testament text of Nicetas of Remesiana, a fourth-century Latin bishop who transmits interesting evidence for the earlier Latin versions. Despite some freedom in his habits of quotation, passages cited more than once are consistent in form. His citations display some affinities with surviving witnesses in the Gospels and Acts, but his text of Paul is often unique. Throughout the New Testament, his unusual readings often correspond to known Greek alternatives, suggesting that he either referred to a Greek text or bears witness to a Latin version which has not otherwise been preserved. The remaining contributions from the Oxford workshop describe the activity of their respective institutions. Bas ter Haar Romeny offers an introduction to the Syriac versions of the Bible, with particular reference to the Old Testament. Even though the Peshitta was based on a Hebrew text, the picture is complicated by the ongoing interplay between Syriac and Greek. Patristic writings should be important sources for establishing the text of all the main versions (Peshitta, Syro-Hexapla and Hexapla), but practical problems have often prevented editors from making full use of the Syriac Fathers. From a patristic point of view, the treatment of the scriptural text in exegetical works is an area ripe for further study; the form of biblical quotations may also be of use in establishing the provenance of material in collections. Claudia Wick highlights the significance of biblical quotations for lexicographers working on the Thesaurus Linguae Latinae. The fact that Latin forms usually correspond to a known Greek (or Hebrew) term can be used to trace the linguistic influence of the original languages on the later development of Latin, through borrowing, adoption, the extension of semantic domains and the creation of neologisms. The Old Latin versions are of particular interest for their variety, their sociolinguistic level and their subsequent influence on the history of the language. In the absence of modern editions for all books of the Vetus Latina, however, the Thesaurus has established its own method of assembling and verifying Old Latin readings, based on a series of index cards with readings from patristic sources and biblical manuscripts. Although the lexicographer’s interests may differ from those of the textual critic, the importance of biblical and patristic scholarship in this related field and the potential for collaborative work are brought to the fore. We are very grateful to all authors represented here for their participation in the various fora in which these papers were originally presented and their work in preparing them for publication. We would like particularly to thank Markus Vinzent and the Studia Patristica team for agreeing to devote a separate thematic fascicle to this collection and their assistance at every stage of the publication process. We hope that, like the projects they represent, these contributions will be of interest to a varied audience, both as indications of the importance of the projects which they represent and a snapshot of editorial work at this exciting and innovative time. Laurence Mellerin Hugh Houghton March 2012