BigNorsk
2nd February 2008, 01:28 PM
Anyone know of an English version of the Glossa ordinaria? That was the standard gloss used as a commentary at the time of the Reformation.
It is referred to in Article XXV of the Augsburg Confession.
12] And the Gloss (Of Repentance, Distinct. V, Cap. Consideret) admits that Confession
is of human right only [not commanded by Scripture, but ordained by the Church].
It's also of interest because it was held in such high esteem by the Roman Catholic church at least until the time of the Duoay translation where it is referred to in the introductions. During the Middle Ages, it was used by all Roman Catholic centers of training theologians.
Part of the historical interest on my part is that it clearly lays out how the Apocryphal books are indeed not authoritative scripture. And the first thing at the beginning of each of them is a statement that they are not scripture.
For instance a translation of it's introductions says this: Many people, who do not give much attention to the holy scriptures, think that all the books contained in the Bible should be honored and adored with equal veneration, not knowing how to distinguish among the canonical and non-canonical books, the latter of which the Jews number among the apocrypha. Therefore they often appear ridiculous before the learned; and they are disturbed and scandalized when they hear that someone does not honor something read in the Bible with equal veneration as all the rest. Here, then, we distinguish and number distinctly first the canonical books and then the non-canonical, among which we further distinguish between the certain and the doubtful. The canonical books have been brought about through the dictation of the Holy Spirit. It is not known, however, at which time or by which authors the non-canonical or apocryphal books were produced. Since, nevertheless, they are very good and useful, and nothing is found in them which contradicts the canonical books, the church reads them and permits them to be read by the faithful for devotion and edification. Their authority, however, is not considered adequate for proving those things which come into doubt or contention, or for confirming the authority of ecclesiastical dogma, as blessed Jerome states in his prologue to Judith and to the books of Solomon. But the canonical books are of such authority that whatever is contained therein is held to be true firmly and indisputably, and likewise that which is clearly demonstrated from them. For just as in philosophy a truth is known through reduction to self-evident first principles, so too, in the writings handed down from holy teachers, the truth is known, as far as those things that must be held by faith, through reduction to the canonical scriptures that have been produced by divine revelation, which can contain nothing false. Hence, concerning them Augustine says to Jerome: To those writers alone who are called canonical I have learned to offer this reverence and honor: I hold most firmly that none of them has made an error in writing. Thus if I encounter something in them which seems contrary to the truth, I simply think that the manuscript is incorrect, or I wonder whether the translator has discovered what the word means, or whether I have understood it at all. But I read other writers in this way: however much they abound in sanctity or teaching, I do not consider what they say true because they have judged it so, but rather because they have been able to convince me from those canonical authors, or from probable arguments, that it agrees with the truth.124
It also specifically enumerates the books which Martin Luther completely agreed with.
The current version of history often promoted by Catholics is that the canon was set as they now use it years before around the year 400, and finally Trent just recognized it. But both their Bible, the Vulgate and their textbook for Commentary disagree. And we see in other publications around the time of Luther the same thing. For instance one Latin translation made with the full approval of Popes actually put the Apocryphal books in a separate section.
In investigating this, it seems that Martin Luther was not an innovator at all but was actually right in the mainstream of scholarship of his time concerning the canon of scripture.
Marv
It is referred to in Article XXV of the Augsburg Confession.
12] And the Gloss (Of Repentance, Distinct. V, Cap. Consideret) admits that Confession
is of human right only [not commanded by Scripture, but ordained by the Church].
It's also of interest because it was held in such high esteem by the Roman Catholic church at least until the time of the Duoay translation where it is referred to in the introductions. During the Middle Ages, it was used by all Roman Catholic centers of training theologians.
Part of the historical interest on my part is that it clearly lays out how the Apocryphal books are indeed not authoritative scripture. And the first thing at the beginning of each of them is a statement that they are not scripture.
For instance a translation of it's introductions says this: Many people, who do not give much attention to the holy scriptures, think that all the books contained in the Bible should be honored and adored with equal veneration, not knowing how to distinguish among the canonical and non-canonical books, the latter of which the Jews number among the apocrypha. Therefore they often appear ridiculous before the learned; and they are disturbed and scandalized when they hear that someone does not honor something read in the Bible with equal veneration as all the rest. Here, then, we distinguish and number distinctly first the canonical books and then the non-canonical, among which we further distinguish between the certain and the doubtful. The canonical books have been brought about through the dictation of the Holy Spirit. It is not known, however, at which time or by which authors the non-canonical or apocryphal books were produced. Since, nevertheless, they are very good and useful, and nothing is found in them which contradicts the canonical books, the church reads them and permits them to be read by the faithful for devotion and edification. Their authority, however, is not considered adequate for proving those things which come into doubt or contention, or for confirming the authority of ecclesiastical dogma, as blessed Jerome states in his prologue to Judith and to the books of Solomon. But the canonical books are of such authority that whatever is contained therein is held to be true firmly and indisputably, and likewise that which is clearly demonstrated from them. For just as in philosophy a truth is known through reduction to self-evident first principles, so too, in the writings handed down from holy teachers, the truth is known, as far as those things that must be held by faith, through reduction to the canonical scriptures that have been produced by divine revelation, which can contain nothing false. Hence, concerning them Augustine says to Jerome: To those writers alone who are called canonical I have learned to offer this reverence and honor: I hold most firmly that none of them has made an error in writing. Thus if I encounter something in them which seems contrary to the truth, I simply think that the manuscript is incorrect, or I wonder whether the translator has discovered what the word means, or whether I have understood it at all. But I read other writers in this way: however much they abound in sanctity or teaching, I do not consider what they say true because they have judged it so, but rather because they have been able to convince me from those canonical authors, or from probable arguments, that it agrees with the truth.124
It also specifically enumerates the books which Martin Luther completely agreed with.
The current version of history often promoted by Catholics is that the canon was set as they now use it years before around the year 400, and finally Trent just recognized it. But both their Bible, the Vulgate and their textbook for Commentary disagree. And we see in other publications around the time of Luther the same thing. For instance one Latin translation made with the full approval of Popes actually put the Apocryphal books in a separate section.
In investigating this, it seems that Martin Luther was not an innovator at all but was actually right in the mainstream of scholarship of his time concerning the canon of scripture.
Marv