tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7869485580444897612.comments2023-12-30T07:59:59.994-06:00Our BeansEd Gallagherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09304631281634219161noreply@blogger.comBlogger199125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7869485580444897612.post-62416068608301435202023-12-30T07:59:59.994-06:002023-12-30T07:59:59.994-06:00To Henry, who wrote:
"As for the question if...To Henry, who wrote:<br /><br />"As for the question if the oratio manasse was ever located at the end of 2 chronicles in the lxx Greek before Origen’s hexaplaric correction, or in any of the vetus Latina translations before Jerome, the answer is: there is no evidence; not only of manuscripts portraying such a thing, but also not at all patristic evidence"<br /><br />Well, maybe there we lack patristic quotations, but we have the Didascalia Apostolorum and the Syriach version includes it right after Par. Further, we have Jewish evidence, from none else than Josephus:<br /><br />https://www.jstor.org/stable/44092039?saml_data=eyJzYW1sVG9rZW4iOiI5ZjI0N2JhZC04ZWNlLTRhMGUtYjY4Yy05Y2YyNzdlNWIwOWYiLCJlbWFpbCI6IjI1ODY4M0BtYWlsLm11bmkuY3oiLCJpbnN0aXR1dGlvbklkcyI6WyI4MzI3N2VmOC0yNTg5LTQ0ODktOGUwMS01MmRlM2RhZTMyNDciXX0<br /><br />also, pp. 199-205:<br />https://books.google.cz/books/about/The_Hebrew_Bible_of_Josephus.html?id=tJpouwEACAAJ&redir_esc=y<br /><br />Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16585344956350298036noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7869485580444897612.post-17182214900150889942023-10-27T05:55:24.030-05:002023-10-27T05:55:24.030-05:00Nice blog thanks for ppostingNice blog thanks for ppostingDoDootshttps://dodoots.tumblr.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7869485580444897612.post-16528813063592403072023-08-25T12:15:01.090-05:002023-08-25T12:15:01.090-05:00First time reading, much appreciate itFirst time reading, much appreciate itMake Me Truccohttps://makemetrucco.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7869485580444897612.post-65215103084758487872023-07-11T11:04:59.073-05:002023-07-11T11:04:59.073-05:00Thanks, Scott, for the reference to Pedro García d...Thanks, Scott, for the reference to Pedro García de Galarza. That's helpful. <br /><br />And that passage from O'Malley is very interesting. I read O'Malley's book several years ago, and I believe I have even quoted part of the passage you highlight in some publications on the canon (probably my THB article on the Latin canon). Ed Gallagherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09304631281634219161noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7869485580444897612.post-39062716339271428612023-07-09T17:11:55.843-05:002023-07-09T17:11:55.843-05:00"I have attempted to provide links where I co..."I have attempted to provide links where I could where more information can be found about the various people or subjects mentioned by Migne."<br /><br />"Petrus Garzia Galarza" might be <a href="https://www.cronistasoficiales.com/?p=65533" rel="nofollow">PEDRO GARCÍA DE GALARZA</a>. He is clearly after the Council of Trent as he was only eight when the 4th session was held (Ambrosius Catharinus was at Trent). It seems odd that Galarza (maybe both) would be included with "those who have formerly found written thus in their copies" at the time the PL is compiled. I wonder if this speaks to some uncertainty (i.e. a perception that the canon was still open) about how dogmatically Trent's declaration was viewed.<br /><br />I recently read this, which I found quite interesting:<br /><br />"But questions arose as soon as it became clear that the Reformers were not the only ones to question the status of the Apocrypha and, indeed that the controversy over them went back to the patristic era...Bonuccio made a crucial intervention: the council should not try to resolve questions long disputed among reputable theologians, certainly not among the Fathers of the Church such as Jerome and Augustine. Such questions should remain open. That is the course the council should follow...and that is the understanding we have of the canon approved by Florence...The council agreed simply to affirm the Florentine canon but with the understanding that it was not taking a stand on the disputed question...That absolutely crucial qualification of the decree may have been clear to the prelates at the council, but the text they produced gave no hint of it...In the context of the controversies of the sixteenth century, in fact, the decree reads like an unqualified affirmation of the wide canon as a mark of their identity, to be defended in its integrity against all comers. This decision constituted the first instance of subsequent misunderstandings of what the council intended that that became standard interpretations, impossible to dislodge even from the minds of scholars who should know better. In this case at least, the council itself must be held responsible for the misunderstanding."<br /><br />O’Malley, John W. Trent: What Happened at the Council. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2013.Scott Cooperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06553047245729094897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7869485580444897612.post-17341942520558351502023-07-06T15:37:20.911-05:002023-07-06T15:37:20.911-05:00Sorry, one other question. Do you know if Codex Am...Sorry, one other question. Do you know if Codex Amiatinus has all of Jerome's prologues? I recall reading that it was prepared as a gift for the pope in the 8th century. It would seem to be an important witness for the shorter canon in the West, at that time, if it included prologues identifying books as apocryphal. I read a theory somewhere recently that the longer OT canon may have come into gradual acceptance as a result of manuscripts gradually omitting Jerome's prologues. Not sure how plausible that is...Scott Cooperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06553047245729094897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7869485580444897612.post-4603080612507879722023-07-06T15:28:12.298-05:002023-07-06T15:28:12.298-05:00Dr. Gallagher, I've read this, as well as your...Dr. Gallagher, I've read this, as well as your earlier post on the same topic. I'm trying to wrap my mind around it. Previously, you quoted Migne (IIRC) as saying:<br /><br />"Thus, Jerome would not at all agree with himself if the Book of Tobit, which in this place he declared should be put among the apocrypha, later in the preface to the same book of Tobit he said that among the Hebrews it was transferred to the Hagiographa."<br /><br />Do you have an idea what "transferred to" means? Is it possible that Jerome is ascribing the term to Jews of his day? How would Jews have used "Agiographa" vs. "Ketuvim"?<br /><br />Also, just a thought...maybe a crazy one. As I recall, Judith and Tobit are the only two fictional books in the apocrypha. With "Agiographa" being less common, is it possible Jerome may have used it with another meaning related to that?Scott Cooperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06553047245729094897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7869485580444897612.post-79739034956823904902023-06-19T07:03:40.310-05:002023-06-19T07:03:40.310-05:00Scott,
I don't think Sixtus provides specifi...Scott, <br /><br />I don't think Sixtus provides specific clues about his thinking on this question. I would guess that he would say that even before Trent it had been generally determined that the deuterocanonical writings held "irrefutable authority." On the other hand, according to my own survey of medieval opinion, there was significant disagreement about whether the deuterocanonical literature was on par with the protocanonical literature. Ed Gallagherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09304631281634219161noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7869485580444897612.post-42494168886525831472023-06-18T17:56:40.234-05:002023-06-18T17:56:40.234-05:00When Sixtus says:
Then, after some time, as Rufin...When Sixtus says:<br /><br /><i>Then, after some time, as Rufinus writes in the Symbolum, among all the faithful they concede [them] to be read, not for the confirmation of doctrines, but merely for the instruction of the people; and because they are read publicly in the church, they call them Ecclesiastical. But finally they wished [them] to be taken up into the writings of irrefutable authority.</i><br /><br />Is there anything in the context of his writing that suggests when "finally" is? Is he referring to the decision at the Council of Trent or some other undefined time of acceptance between the time of Rufinus and Trent? Since that's over a millennia, it seems he would be more specific but if hi writing is about the decisions at Trent, that might explain his dearth of detail. Surely an established Latin tradition emerges in that period, but how does one put a date on it?Scott Cooperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06553047245729094897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7869485580444897612.post-1098274581018320352023-05-25T07:53:05.210-05:002023-05-25T07:53:05.210-05:00Hi nice reading yoour postHi nice reading yoour postSmoothie Recipeshttps://www.smoothiefoodie.com/smoothies/watermelon_mint_smoothie_5399532698.shtmlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7869485580444897612.post-80007446569897580672023-05-20T08:48:40.373-05:002023-05-20T08:48:40.373-05:00So what do you say about Jerome's quote in Let...So what do you say about Jerome's quote in Letter 3 - "Oh, if only the Lord Jesus Christ would suddenly transport me to you as Philip was transported to the eunuch, Acts 8:26-30 and Habakkuk to Daniel, with what a close embrace would I clasp your neck, how fondly would I press kisses upon that mouth which has so often joined with me of old in error or in wisdom."<br /><br /><br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18142110434299764998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7869485580444897612.post-54697942824836066272023-05-01T03:02:17.564-05:002023-05-01T03:02:17.564-05:00Yet Genesis and the Flood are apocalyptic and it w...Yet Genesis and the Flood are apocalyptic and it was written in the literal? The entire Bible is symbolic until you find that magical keyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7869485580444897612.post-84857197944616644742023-01-13T06:36:15.190-06:002023-01-13T06:36:15.190-06:00John was told to write what he saw. God doesn’t ne...John was told to write what he saw. God doesn’t need man to protect Him or His message. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7869485580444897612.post-49144769494803939482022-12-19T06:59:19.467-06:002022-12-19T06:59:19.467-06:00Regarding Satlow's and
Schiffman's sugges...Regarding Satlow's and <br />Schiffman's suggestion that the Qumran community t was a Sadducean group, if true, wouldn't that challenge the tradition that the Sadducees had a limited canon?Scott Cooperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06553047245729094897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7869485580444897612.post-24685472463023019242022-11-02T21:41:03.833-05:002022-11-02T21:41:03.833-05:00Thanks for the question. I don't have a good a...Thanks for the question. I don't have a good answer, but it seems to me that the dinner context is significant and Jesus' candor in that context is significant, as is the response by the Pharisees, which is not always reported and so open to some guessing. Perhaps some Pharisees sometimes invited Jesus to dinner because they were interested in what he had to say. <br /><br />Maybe you've got better formed thoughts. Thanks for the prodding. Ed Gallagherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09304631281634219161noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7869485580444897612.post-2883379719006418182022-11-02T21:21:23.848-05:002022-11-02T21:21:23.848-05:00I assume that he would have interpreted the Counci...I assume that he would have interpreted the Council of Florence as not intending to bind the larger canon absolutely. There was still some discussion about the issue even at Trent, about whether Florence allowed for distinctions among the books. Ed Gallagherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09304631281634219161noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7869485580444897612.post-78043867324727063492022-11-02T21:18:11.812-05:002022-11-02T21:18:11.812-05:00Tom, good to hear from you. Email at egallagher@hc...Tom, good to hear from you. Email at egallagher@hcu.edu and we can keep in touch. I'm glad you've liked the series on angels. It's not quite over; I'll record another one tomorrow. Ed Gallagherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09304631281634219161noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7869485580444897612.post-11213832928087444632022-11-02T15:37:15.172-05:002022-11-02T15:37:15.172-05:00I just got finished watching your series on angels...I just got finished watching your series on angels!! Excellent work!! I would love to talk to you about it sometime! Keep up the great work, brother!! God bless! <br /><br />-Tom AtkinsonTom Atkinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07665069529872373722noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7869485580444897612.post-82621687683695596082022-10-15T22:01:19.898-05:002022-10-15T22:01:19.898-05:00"For the words of both councils and teachers ..."For the words of both councils and teachers ought to be brought back to the revision of Jerome"<br /><br />Since Florence is referenced, does it follow that Cajetan did not view this Council as infallible?Scott Cooperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06553047245729094897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7869485580444897612.post-45424087858828936842022-10-15T21:58:54.251-05:002022-10-15T21:58:54.251-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Scott Cooperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06553047245729094897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7869485580444897612.post-10919434971108384702022-10-10T15:16:40.938-05:002022-10-10T15:16:40.938-05:00What significance do you attach to, or what are we...What significance do you attach to, or what are we to make of Jesus leveling these criticisms in the context of a meal, enjoying the hospitality of his Pharisee host? In the other synoptics these criticisms are announced, I believe, in the "open forum" as it were, in presence of disciples and others who have come to hear Jesus.Deacon Jim McGovernhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14279402146475172121noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7869485580444897612.post-71637263568663493012022-07-26T16:20:57.650-05:002022-07-26T16:20:57.650-05:00Grreat blog I enjoyed readingGrreat blog I enjoyed readingApopka Paintershttps://www.find-painters.com/us/painting-contractors-florida/apopka-painters.shtmlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7869485580444897612.post-50080972609391654092022-07-17T17:07:09.595-05:002022-07-17T17:07:09.595-05:00But You left out one important detail! John was ba...But You left out one important detail! John was banished to the Island of Patmos when he wrote this . . It had to get out through roman hands before if could get into the hands of the Church . . It had to be protected.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16460466413050173958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7869485580444897612.post-51181573014063960382022-07-15T04:22:59.340-05:002022-07-15T04:22:59.340-05:00Since the text of the prayer in Latin was not tran...Since the text of the prayer in Latin was not transmitted via biblical manuscript it become a rare object of prayer´s books, difficult to find entirely in its own, -aside its excerpts from the liturgy-. The prayer was from Greek translated De Novo, and appear in Gallican bibles first scarcely in the 12th century (as is the case of the earliest preserved bible I know of containing the manasseh´s preyer: Exceter college ms.5, folio 122f) and it become generalized edited in the 13th century bibles from which are preserved nearly a hundred from all around the European libraries. It was initially added as a continuous part of the text at the end of the book of 2-chonicles, without any brake or distinction, later on, was separate and entitled under its own name after this book. One of this parisine vulgates was the guide for the Guttenberg’s bible, and when the reformation surged in the 16th century they believed that, what was in the Guttenberg’s bible was the canon of the catholic church, such was not the case (the catholic church define her canon not as appear in any given pandex but as a juridical list given by the conjunction of the titles recognized as divine inspirited -canonized- at laodicea360 plus Carthage419 canons, ergo the word CANONICAL). Langton in the 13th century believed the vulgate -as was available to him back in his time (a parisine vulgate) - was a faithfully transmition of the catholic canon and Jerome works, an innocent but false believe I fear.<br /><br />As for the question if the oratio manasse was ever located at the end of 2 chronicles in the lxx Greek before Origen’s hexaplaric correction, or in any of the vetus Latina translations before Jerome, the answer is: there is no evidence; not only of manuscripts portraying such a thing, but also not at all patristic evidence: I mean church´s fathers ever quoting this prayer as part of the book of paralipomenos, as we have from them and the liturgical testimony for example of Baruch/ep being at some early point in history an integral part of LXX/vetus-Jeremiah. If the church has had that sort of historical evidence in its magisterial tradition, the fathers of Trent would have acknowledge the prayer as integral part of LXXparalipomenos and as such: canonical, as was done with the deuterocanonical LXXcorpus parts in Daniel, Esther and Jeremiah. But that didn’t happened.<br /><br />In any case, we could be sure that if that integration was ever the case in the vetus edition, Jerome would had point it out, but not even this would be an absolute, Jerome for example never protest against Greek EsdrasA (3 esdras) position in the biblical codex, he actually quoted it as scripture several times in his works, even if he considered it a lesser exact account -in comparison with the Masoretic esdras/Nehemiah one-, he never spoke ill about it. (be aware that when he wrote against a the 3th and 4th books of esdras, he was likely referring as 3 esdras to what we today known as 4esdras3-14, just as was known by other contemporary to Jerome: ambrosius, and as 4esdras what we today know as 5/6esdras.) be aware that when Jerome wrote against vigilantius who he use 4esdras7 as scriptural evidence, Jerome say he has never even red from that book as is not received by the church, so we know he knew this book as 3esdras, -as also named it Ambrose-, because Greek esdras A (our current 3 esdras) he did quote it. (See. Bogaert).Henryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08910416955636343350noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7869485580444897612.post-26016844637949744952022-07-15T04:22:44.607-05:002022-07-15T04:22:44.607-05:00Christian authors tend to quote what they came to ...Christian authors tend to quote what they came to have as bible in their own time and locations. in England the parisine Vulgate was the version of the Vulgate that came to be known as “the bible” in the 12/13th century by Langton and Bacon, just as in the continent let’s say to Thomas of Aquinas and Albert the great (who they also quoted the prayer of Manasseh as scripture/part of paralipomenos). I don't think they have the luxury of critically comparing old Vulgate editions from all around Europe.<br /><br />Even if the biblical canon was fixed theoretically in the canon law of the catholic church by several synods and pope´s excathedra declaration in the 4th and 5th century: (laodicea360/Rome382/ hipopo393 /carthage397/ innocence I 405/ cartage419/ Galesius492); and their relevant canons indirectly ratify and received by later universal councils, it didn't translate in praxis (hardcore bible exclusive) until the sixtoclementine1592 Vulgate even when several blessed fathers try to make approximations on it through time so to assemble a Christian bible with only the titles of the church´s canonical books (Cassiodorus, Ceolfrid, Alcuin, Theodolf); oratio manasse of course was not in those editions since was never punctually mention in the canons of those synods/decrees The prayer was translated to Latin in antiquity when the translation of the book of odes (cantica/canticles) -for liturgical proposes-, and later, the Didascalia Apostolorum, -that contain it in full -was done; but despite its ancient liturgical use, attested by the mozarabic, ambrosian and Gregorian liturgies that quote it to a variable extend, this canticle was not appended to the Latin biblical manuscript (vetus or early vulgate) as was done for example in the Greek codex alexandrinus400, so much that saint Jerome didn’t even feel the need to speak against it as he did of every other book and apart of the deuterocanon that were present in the bible of his day, but that antagonize his particular canonical views. The oldest preserved quote in Latin from the manasseh´s prayer is recorded by Eucherius of Lyon (+449); he quotes the text as “in Cantinco”. <br /><br /> Eucherius Lugdunensis (380 – 449), Formulae Spiritalis Intelligentiae: <br />CAPUT VII. DE INTERIORE HOMINE.<br />Genua confessio humilitatis In Cantico: Et nunc flecto genua cordis mei (Or.Man. 11), et in Psalmo: Genua mea infirmata sunt a jejunio (Ps.CVIII, 24). <br /><br />It’s true that the oldest Latin commentary on the book of odes, including the ode of Manasseh was made by verecundius iucensis (+552), but the oldest preserved commentary on it by any church fathers was made by hesychius of Jerusalem (+433). (For the attribution to Hesych cf. H. Schneider, supplementum Psaltern Bononiensis, Vienna 1917pp. 58-65)<br /> Henryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08910416955636343350noreply@blogger.com