Archive for the ‘Latin’ Category

Basil the Great (Works – Greek With Latin Translation) – Index Page

June 3, 2009

Google has apparently just one index for this series (link).

Volume 1 (Part 2) (Archive Part 1)(Archive Part 2)

Homiliae in Hexaemeron Novem

I. In illud, In principio fecit Deus etc.
II. In illud, Invisibilis erat terra etc.
III. De firmamento
IV. De aquarum congregatione
V. De germinatione terrae
VI. De generatione luminarium
VII. De reptilibus
VIII. De volatilibus
IX. De terrestribus

Homiliae

I. In Psalmum primum
II. In Psalmum septimum
III. In partem Psalmum XIV, et contra feneratores
IV. In Psalmum XXVIII
V. In Psalmum XXIX
VI. In Psalmum XXXII
VII. In Psalmum XXXIII
VIII. In Psalmum XLIV
IX. In Psalmum XLV
X. In Psalmum XLVIII
XI. In Psalmum LIX
XII. In Psalmum LXI
XIII. In Psalmum CXIV

Libri Adversus Eunomium V.

Liber I
Liber II
Liber III
Liber IV
Liber V

Appendix (Part 2)

De hominis structura oratio I
De hominis structura oratio II
De Paradiso
In Psalmum XIV
In Psalmum XXVIII
In Psalmum XXXVII
In Psalmum CXV
In Psalmum CXXXII
Enarratio in prophetam Esaiam
Eunomii liber
Eustathri in Hexaëmeron Basilii Magni Latina metaphrasis
Notae Frontonis Ducaei
Notae Federici Morelli
Praecipuae antiquarum editionum Prefationes

Volume 2 (Part 2)(Archive Part 1)(Archive Part 2)

Homiliae De Diversis

I. De Jejunio (First)
II. De Jejunion (Second)
III. In illud, Attende tibiipsi
IV. De gratiarum actione
V. In Martyrem Julittam, etc.
VI. In illud, Destruam horrea mea, et majora aedificabo, etc. et de Avaritia
VII. In Divites
VIII. In Famem et siccitatem
IX. In illud, Quod Deus non est auctor malorum
X. Adversus iratos
XI. De Invidia
XII. In principium Proverbiorum
XIII. In sanctum Baptisma
XIV. In Ebriosos
XV. De Fide
XVI. In illud, In principio erat Verbum
XVII. In Barlaam Martyrem
XVIII. In Godium Martyrem
XIX. In sanctos quandraginta Martyres
XX. De Humilitate
XXI. Quod rebus mundanis adhaerendum non sit, et de incendio extra ecclesiam facto
XXII. Ad adolescentes, de legendis libris Gentilium
XXIII. In Mamantem Martyrem
XXIV. Contra Sabellianos et Arium et Anomaaeos

Ascetica

Praevia Insititutio ascetica
Sermo asceticus de renuntiatione saeculi, etc.
Sermo de ascetica disciplina, quomodo monachum ornari oporteat
Proaemium de Judicio Dei
Sermo de Fide
Index Moralium
Initium Moralium
Sermo asceticus (first)
Sermo asceticus (second)
Proaemium in Regulas fusius tractatas
Capita Regularum fusius tractatas
Regulae fusius tractatae

(Part 2)

Capita Regularum brevis tractatarum
Proaemium in Regulas breviores
Regulae brevius tractatae
Poenae in Monachos delinquentes
Epitimia in Canonicas
Capita Constitutionum
Constitutiones monasticae
Homilia de Spiritu sancto
Homilia in aliquot Scripturae locos, dicta in Lacizis
Homilia in sanctam Christi generationem
Homilia de Poenitentia
Homilia adversus calumniatores S. Trinitatis
Sermo de libero arbitrio
Homilia in illud, Ne dederis somnum oculis tuis, etc.
Homilia III de Jejunio
Sermo asceticus, de religiosae exercitationis informatione
Liber I de Baptismo
Liber II de Baptismo
Liturgia S. Basilii Alexandrina
Liturgia S. Basilii Coptica. Latine
Tractatus de consolatione in adversis. Latine
De Laude solitariae vitae. Latine
Admonitio ad filium spiritualem. Latine

Homiliae S. Basilii

Quas transtulit Ruffinus e Graeco in Latinum (which Ruffinus translated from Greek into Latin)

I. In Psalmum I
II. In illud, Attende tibi ne forte fiat in corde tuo sermo occultus iniquitas
III. In illud Lucae, Cujusdam divitis fructus uberes ager attulit, etc.
IV. De Invidia
V. In Principium Proverbiorum Solomonis
VI. De Fide
VII. Ad virginem lapsam
VIII. In Psalmum LIX
IX. Homilia ad invitatos in Baptismum
X. Translatio Latina vetustae versionis Armeniacae, quae hanc homiliam Severiano tribuit

Volume 3 (Part 2)(Second Edition)(Archive Part 1)(Archive Part 2)

Vita S. Basilii Magni (A long biography of Basil in the preface – Latin only, of course, except where Greek words are quoted)

Liber de Spiritu sancto
Sancti Basilii Epistolae secundum ordinem temporum nunc primum dispositae et in tres classes distributae. (An extensive mapping of the number of these letters comes at the end of the preface, after the biography of Basil.)
– Classis I: Continent epistolas ante episcopatum scriptas ab anno 357 ad annum 370, quibus adduntur nonnullae dubiae, quia videntur ad hoc tempus pertinere
– Classis II: Quas episcopus scripsit ab anno 370 ad annum 378
– Classis III: Epistolas nulla temporis nota signatas cum pluribus dubiis et spuriis nonnullis

Appendix

Sermones viginti quatuor de moribus per Symeonem Magistrum et Logothetam selecti ex omnibus sancti Basilii operibus

– I. De virtute et vitio
– II. De doctrina et admonitione
– III. De caritate in Deum et proximum
– IV. De eleemosyna
– V. De divitiis et paupertate
– VI. De avaritia
– VII. De peccato
– VIII. De poenitentia
– IX. De oratione
– X. De jejunio
– XI. De morte
– XII. De tristitia et animi dejectione
– XIII. De patientia et longanimitate
– XIV. De futuro judicio
– XV. De imperio ac potestate
– XVI. De ingluvie et ebrietate
– XVII. De ira et odio
– XVIII. De invidia et malevolentia
– XIX. De temperantia et incontentinentia
– XX. De humilitate et inani gloria
– XXI. De prospera et adversa fortuna, et de prudentia
– XXII. De providentia
– XXIII. De anima
– XXIV. De honore parentibus exhibendo, ac de senectute atque juventute

Liber de Virginitate

***

I’ve tried to follow the table of contents laide out in the books. As you should know, the same works appear in Migne PG 29 – 32 (see the Migne PG index). Please note: just because a sermon (or other work or letter) can be found on the list above doesn’t mean that it is a genuine work of Basil of Caesarea. Read carefully!

Enjoy!

-TurretinFan

Advertisements

Migne – Latin Patrology – Index Page

April 10, 2009

The following is an attempted index of the available volumes of Migne’s massive Latin patrology series that are freely available for download. Most of the volumes are available at Google books, but I was (as of 10 April 2009) unable to locate any copies of around 15 percent of the volumes (UPDATE: October 9, 2010, the number of missing tomes is down to about two, thanks to improvement at Google and the assistance of a kind reader).

Within Google Books, I found two main indices for the Latin patrology series. The first index (link) has around 310 full view tomes and around 460 tomes total, whereas the second index (link) has around 330 full view tomes and around 540 total tomes. I believe there is significant overlap between these indices.

One thing I’d like to do enhance this list at some point is to identify the authors that go with each volume. In the meantime there are helpful lists available at other sites, such as this one (link) and this very detailed list (link). The second link is to a website where many of the volumes may be found, either in whole or in part, as images, transcriptions, and translations, if one digs enough.

I have included links to Archive.org where Archive.org has separately scanned the volumes. This is only a very small number of cases, as apparently Archive.org has been content with providing a sort of hijacked (though that sounds pejorative) version of Google’s own scans, with attribution.

PL 001(Copy 2)
PL 002(Copy 2)(Copy 3)
PL 003(Copy 2)(Copy 3)
PL 004(Copy 2)(Copy 3)(Archive)
PL 005(Copy 2)(Copy 3)(Copy 4)
PL 006(Copy 2)(Copy 3)
PL 007(Copy 2)(Copy 3)
PL 008(Copy 2)(Copy 3)(Copy 4)
PL 009(Copy 2)(Copy 3)
PL 010(Copy 2)(Copy 3)
PL 011(Copy 2)(Copy 3)
PL 012(Copy 2)
PL 013(Copy 2)
PL 014(Copy 2)
PL 015(Copy 2)
PL 016(Copy 2)
PL 017(Copy 2)(Copy 3)
PL 018(Copy 2)
PL 019(Copy 2)
PL 020(Copy 2)
PL 021
PL 022
PL 023(Copy 2)
PL 024(Copy 2)(Copy 3)(Copy 4)
PL 025(Copy 2)(Copy 3)
PL 026(Copy 2)(Copy 3)(Copy 4)
PL 027(Copy 2)
PL 028(Copy 2)(Copy 3)(Copy 4)
PL 029(Copy 2)(Copy 3)(Copy 4)
PL 030
PL 031(Copy 2)(Copy 3)
PL 032(Copy 2)(Copy 3)
PL 033(Copy 2)(Copy 3)(Copy 4)(Copy 5)(Copy 6)
PL 034(Copy 2)
PL 035(Copy 2)(Copy 3)
PL 036(Copy 2)(Copy 3)(Copy 4)
PL 037(Copy 2)
PL 038(Copy 2)(Copy 3)(Copy 4)(Copy 5)
PL 039(Copy 2)(Copy 3)
PL 040(Copy 2)(Copy 3)(Copy 4)
PL 041(Copy 2)(Copy 3)(Copy 4)
PL 042(Copy 2)(Copy 3)(Copy 4)
PL 043(Copy 2)(Copy 3)(Copy 4)
PL 044(Copy 2)(Copy 3)(Copy 4)
PL 045
PL 046(Copy 2)(Copy 3)(Copy 4)
PL 047
PL 048(Copy 2)
PL 049(Copy 2)
PL 050(Copy 2)(Archive)
PL 051(Copy 2)(Copy 3)
PL 052(Copy 2)
PL 053(Copy 2)(Copy 3)
PL 054(Copy 2)
PL 055(Copy 2)(Copy 3)
PL 056(Copy 2)(Copy 3)
PL 057(Copy 2)
PL 058(Copy 2)(Copy 3)
PL 059(Copy 2)(Copy 3)
PL 060(Copy 2)(Copy 3)
PL 061(Copy 2)
PL 062(Copy 2)(Copy 3)
PL 063(Copy 2)
PL 064(Copy 2)
PL 065(Copy 2)
PL 066(Copy 2)
PL 067(Copy 2)(Copy 3)
PL 068(Copy 2)
PL 069(Copy 2)
PL 070(Copy 2)
PL 071(Copy 2)(Copy 3)(Copy 4)
PL 072(Copy 2)
PL 073(Copy 2)
PL 074
PL 075
PL 076(Copy 2)(Copy 3)
PL 077
PL 078(Copy 2)
PL 079(Copy 2)(Copy 3)
PL 080(Copy 2)
PL 081(Copy 2)(Copy 3)
PL 082(Copy 2)(Copy 3)
PL 083(Copy 2)(Copy 3)(Archive)
PL 084(Copy 2)(Copy 3)
PL 085(Copy 2)(Copy 3)
PL 086(Copy 2)
PL 087(Copy 2)
PL 088(Copy 2)
PL 089(Copy 2)
PL 090(Copy 2)(Copy 3)
PL 091(Copy 2)(Copy 3)
PL 092(Copy 2)(Copy 3)
PL 093(Copy 2)(Copy 3)
PL 094(Copy 2)
PL 095 (But see Gallica Link below)
PL 096(Copy 2)
PL 097(Copy 2)
PL 098(Copy 2)
PL 099(Copy 2)
PL 100(Copy 2)
PL 101(Copy 2)
PL 102
PL 103(Copy 2)
PL 104(Copy 2)(Copy 3)
PL 105(Copy 2)
PL 106(Copy 2)
PL 107 (Copy 2)(Copy 3)
PL 108(Copy 2)(Copy 3)(Archive)
PL 109(Copy 2)(Copy 3)
PL 110(Copy 2)(Copy 3)
PL 111(Copy 2)(Copy 3)
PL 112(Copy 2)(Copy 3)
PL 113
PL 114
PL 115
PL 116
PL 117
PL 118(Copy 2)
PL 119
PL 120(Copy 2)
PL 121(Copy 2)(Copy 3)
PL 122(Copy 2)
PL 123(Copy 2)
PL 124
PL 125
PL 126(Copy 2)(Copy 3)
PL 127
PL 128(Copy 2)
PL 129
PL 130(Copy 2)
PL 131
PL 132
PL 133
PL 134
PL 135
PL 136
PL 137
PL 138(Copy 2)
PL 139(Copy 2)
PL 140
PL 141(Copy 2)
PL 142
PL 143
PL 144
PL 145 (Copy 2)
PL 146
PL 147
PL 148
PL 149
PL 150(Copy 2)(Copy 3)
PL 151
PL 152(Copy 2)
PL 153(Copy 2)
PL 154
PL 155(Copy 2)
PL 156
PL 157(Copy 2)
PL 158(Copy 2)
PL 159(Copy 2)
PL 160(Copy 2)
PL 161(Copy 2)
PL 162
PL 163
PL 164(Copy 2)
PL 165
PL 166(Copy 2)
PL 167
PL 168
PL 169
PL 170
PL 171
PL 172
PL 173(Copy 2)
PL 174(Copy 2)
PL 175
PL 176
PL 177
PL 178
PL 179(Copy 2)
PL 180(Copy 2)
PL 181(Copy 2)(Copy 3)
PL 182
PL 183(Copy 2)
PL 184
PL 185
PL 185 – part 1
PL 185bis
PL 186
PL 187(Copy 2)
PL 188(Copy 2)
PL 189(Copy 2)
PL 190
PL 191(Copy 2)
PL 192(Copy 2)
PL 193(Copy 2)
PL 194(Copy 2)
PL 195(Copy 2)
PL 196
PL 197(Copy 2)
PL 198(Copy 2)(Archive)
PL 199(Copy 2)(Copy 3)
PL 200(Copy 2)
PL 201(Copy 2)(Copy 3)(Copy 4)
PL 202(Copy 2)
PL 203(Copy 2)
PL 204(Copy 2)
PL 205(Copy 2)
PL 206(Copy 2)(Copy 3)
PL 207
PL 208(Copy 2)
PL 209(Copy 2)
PL 210(Archive)
PL 211(Copy 2)
PL 212(Copy 2)(Copy 3)
PL 213(Copy 2)
PL 214(Copy 2)
PL 215(Copy 2)
PL 216(Copy 2)
PL 217(Copy 2)
PL 218(Copy 2)(Copy 3)(Copy 4)
PL 219(Copy 2)(Copy 3)
PL 220(Copy 2)(Copy 3)
PL 221(Copy 2)(Copy 3)

UPDATE: Volumes of Patrologia Latina available from Gallica

PL 036
PL 037
PL 038
PL 040
PL 043
PL 044
PL 046
PL 088
PL 090
PL 091
PL 093
PL 094
PL 095
PL 130
PL 154
PL 155
PL 218

Enjoy!

-TurretinFan

Glossa Ordinaria Electronica

September 30, 2008

The Glossa Ordinaria is attributed to a 9th century German man named Strabo, who compiled commentary on the Bible, including quotations either from or attributed various church fathers. This gloss never seems to have been officially sanctioned by the pope, but was referenced as being of high authority by Thomas Aquinas. It was popular in the medieval period, and consequently is a valuable aid both for polemicists/apologists and historical theology buffs, as it has an influence to one degree or another on medieval theology.

Now, the scans of a 1603 printing of the Vulgate together with the Glossa Ordinaria have become available, thanks to Archive.org. Sorry, it is still only in Latin.

The following are the Archive.org pages for each of the six volumes as well as a link to the Black and White pdf available for that volume (other formats of the scan are also available).

Volume 1 (b/w pdf) (about 134 MB)
Volume 2 (b/w pdf) (about 116 MB)
Volume 3 (b/w pdf) (about 162 MB)
Volume 4 (b/w pdf) (about 180 MB)
Volume 5 (b/w pdf) (about 139 MB)
Volume 6 (b/w pdf) (about 128 MB)

Enjoy!

-TurretinFan

H.T. to Historical TheoBlogy (link) for bringing this to my attention.

Waltz on Luther – "articulus stantis vel cadentis ecclesiae"

April 16, 2008

David Waltz, a Catholic (I think), poster with whom I’ve crossed swords a few times, has posted a recent blog article in which he identifies a quotation that he believes has been misattributed to Martin Luther. (link to post)

First of all, thanks to David for his post. It is always good to clear the historical record, and it seems that David has put some real time and effort into this.

Leaving aside a rhetorical matter for another time, a couple of notes on the substance of the research:

1) The Latin phrase should be, I think, “articulus stantis vel cadentis ecclesiae” not “articulus stantis et cadentis ecclesiae” ;

2) It it is interesting to note that in addition to the non-Catholics that David identified, Cardinal Newman also seemingly attributes the expression to Luther (see here);

3) Wesley claims that he held Justification by faith to be articulus stantis vel cadentis ecclesiae as early as 1738, (see here), and as well attributes the quotation to Luther but perhaps his memory is faulty (of course the 1738 date would not be inconsistent with the 1718 coining that David asserts) (After Wesley, we often see the quotation attributed to Luther in Methodist circles, which tends to suggest that Wesley would be responsible for the propagation of that particular myth, if indeed it is a myth.);

4) David may want to check up on the loose end frayed by these footnotes
– (a) (here), which seems to hint that the phrase may be Lutheran in its origin;
– (b) (here), which cites to Luther’s commentary on the Psalms of Degrees;
– (c) (here), wherein a counter-article in Bellarmine’s writings is described in the same words, though I could not find such a description in my edition of Bellarmine’s works.

5) Like David, I am unable to find any actual instance where Luther used the phrase.

The doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone is certainly a litmus test for evangelical orthodoxy. Given Luther’s heavy emphasis on justification by faith alone, Luther probably would have agreed with such a statement, whether or not he himself originated the catchy Latin phrasing of the matter. For it is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, that men are saved from the guilt of their sins and made partakers of eternal life.

-Turretinfan

Benedict Pictet – Son in Law of Francis Turretin

February 5, 2008

Benedict Pictet was the Son-in-Law and spiritual successor of Turretin in Geneva.

Here are a list of his works that are currently available (to my knowledge). Sadly, only one is currently freely available in English.

Pictet, Benedict – Brevis Syllabus Controversarium (Brief Syllabus of Controversies) (Latin) (link)
Pictet, Benedict – Theologia Christiana (Christian Theology) (Latin) (link) (this may be incomplete, as the entire work may span multiple volumes)
Pictet, Benedict – Christian Theology (in English!) (link) (pdf from Archive.org) ( black and white pdf from Archive.org) (txt format)
Pictet, Benedict – Traite Centre L’Indifference Des Religions (Main Traits of Religious Indifference) (French) (link)
Pictet, Benedict – La Morale Chretienne ou L’Art De Bien Vivre (The Moral Christian or the Art of the Good Life) (French) (link)
Pictet, Benedict – Prières pour tous les jours de la semaine (Prayers for all the days of the week) (French) (link)

Finally, here is a quick biography of the man:
de Bude, Eugene – Vie de Benedict Pictet (Life of Benedict Pictet) (French) (link)

-Turretinfan

Various Readings of the Great Luther Citation

January 23, 2008

The following are the fourteen readily obtainable uses by authors of the spurious Latin gloss on Luther’s statement, as instigated by Cochlaeus and perpetuated by Bellarmine, and as brought to the public’s attention as spurious by both Whitaker and Swan. The words: “Si diutius steterit mud, iteru erit necessariu, ut, ppter diversas Scripture interptationes, q nunc sunt, ad coservandam fidei unitatem, Concilioru …” are Cochlaeus’ words, not Luther’s words. This has been shown. Armstrong mentioned that the entire passage by Cochlaeus may be forthcoming. That would be wonderful, as it would permit us to fill out the first item in the list, and particularly to see whether Cochlaeus handled the matter like Grisar.

These are only the readings in which the Latin language is used. It is also known that there are additional related readings in German and English.

1. Si diutius steterit mud, iteru erit necessariu, ut, ppter diversas Scripture interptationes, q nunc sunt, ad coservandam fidei unitatem, Concilioru … [which, being expanded is: Si diutius steterit mundus, iterum erit necessarium, ut propter diversas Scripturae interpretationes, quae nunc sunt, ad conservandam fidei unitatem, Conciliorum …] Cochlaeus, [work from Opuscula] (link to snippet) (link to book) (info about book) Opuscula includes, “De canonicae scripturae et catholicae ecclesiae auctoritate,” the speculative original source of the fictious gloss.

2. Lutherus ipse in lib. 1. cont. Zwingl. et Oecolampad., nonne scriptum reliquit; Si diutius steterit Mundus, iterum fore necessarium, propter diversas Scripturae interpretationes quae nunc sunt, ut ad conservandam Fidei unitatem, Conciliorum decreta recipiamus, atque ad ea confugiamus.
Bellarmine, Opera Omnia, p. 98 (link)

3. Quare Martinus Lutherus in lib. cont. Zuvinglium de verit. corp. Christ.in Euchar. Si diutius, inquit, steterit mundus, iterm erit necessarium, ut propter diversas Scripturae interpretationes quae nunc sunt, ad conservandam fidei unitatem, conciliorum decreta recipiamus , atque ad ea confugiamus.
Bellarmine, Opera Omnia, p. 76 (link)

4. Lutherus ipse scribens contra Zwinglium et Oecolampadium I. 1. ait: Si diutius steterit mundus, iterum fore necessarium, propter diversas Scripturae interpretationes, quae nunc sunt, ut ad conservandam fidei unitatem, Conciliorum decreta recipiamus, atque ad ea confugiamus.
Mellini, p. 138, Institutiones Biblicae (link)

5. Luther lib. 1. contra Zwinglium et Oecolampadium ait: si diutius steterit mundus iterum fore necessarium propter diversas sacrae scripturae interpretationes quae nunc sunt, ut ad conservandam fidei unitatem, Conciliorum decreta recipiamus, et ad ea confugiamus.
Leibniz, Philosophische Schriften 4, p. 2288 (link)

6. Luther, writing to Zwinglius, said, “If the world lasts for a long time, it will be again necessary, on account of the different interpretations which are now given to the Scriptures, to receive the decrees of Councils, and take refuge in them, in order to preserve the unity of the faith.—Si diutius steterit mundus, iterum erit necessarium, propter diversas Scripturœ interpretationes quœ nunc sunt, ad conservandam fidei unitatem, ut conciliorum decreta recipiamus, atque ad ea confugiamus.”
Balmes, Protestantism and Catholicity Compared in Their Effects on the Civilization …, p423 (link) (p. 360 in this version)

7. (1) Luther lui-même écrivait : « Si diutius steterit muridus, iterum necessarium erit, ut propter diversas Scripturœ interpretationes quae mine sunt, ad conservandam fidei unitatem, Conciliorum decreta recipiamus atque ad ea confugiamus. » De veritate corporis Christi cont. Zuinglium.
Bacuez (and Vigouroux), Manuel Biblique, p. 215 (link)

8. Such was the confusion in the camp of Protestantism, that Luther himself had to exclaim “si diutius steterit mundus, iterum esset necessarium, ut propter diversas scripturae interpretationes quae nunc sunt, ad conservandam fidei unitatem concilii decreta recipiamus atque ad ea confugiamus”—(De Veritate Corporis Christi contra Zwinglium.)
Hallinan, Modern Erroneous Systems of Biblical Interpretation (pub. In Irish ecclesiastical record), p. 236 (link)

9. Imo iam olim Luther, de veritate corporis Christi contra Zvingl. scripsit : „Si diutius steterit mundus, iterum erit necessarium, ut propter diversas Scripturae interpretationes, quae nunc sunt, ad conservandam fidei unitatem Concilii decreta recipiamus, atque ad ea confugiamus.”
Ranolder, Hermeneuticae Biblicae Generalis Principis Rationalia Christiana et Catholica, p. 272 (link)

10. Luther écrivait dans une lettre à Zwingle, qu’à cause des interprétations différentes de l’Ecriture sainte, il faudrait, pour conserver l’unité de la religion, admettre de nouveau les décrets des conciles et y avoir recours. « Si mundus diutius steterit, ad conservandam fidei unitatem iterum erit necessarium propter diversas Scriptura interpretationes ut conciliorum decreta recipiamus, atque ad ea confugiamus. »
Buszczynski, La Decadence de l’Europe, p. 429 (link)

11. Et c’est icy ou je crois d’avoir fermement prouvé que nous avons besoin d’une autre Regle pour nostre foy outre la Regle de l’Escritture Sainte : Si diutius steterit mundus (dict une bonne fois Luther *), iterum fore necessarium, propter diversas Scripturae interpretationes quae nunc sunt, ut ad conservandam fidei unitatem Conciliorum decreta recipiamus, atque ad ea confugiamus; il confesse qu’auparavant on la recevoit, et confesse que ci apres il le faudra faire. J’ay esté long, mays cecy une fois bien entendu, n’est pas un petit moyen de se resouvre a une tressainte deliberation. [marginal note] * Contra Zuing. et Œcol.(1) [footnote] (1) In libro, Qod haec verba, « Hoc est corpus meum, » etc. Vide in Parte Prima, cap. III, art. IV, p. 97.
Francis, Oeuvres de Saint Francois de Sales, p. 207 (link)

12. Lutherus ipse sic scribebat 83): Si diutius steterit mundus , iterum necessarium erit, ut propter diversas scripturae interpretationes, quae nunc sunt, ad conservandam Fidei unitatem Conciliorum decreta (Tridentini videlicet) recipiamus atque ad ea confugiamus.”
Brunati, De nomine, auctore, emendatoribus et authentia Vulgatæ dissertatio, typis …, pages 45-46 (link)

13. And he is willing in his despair to take refuge from the anarchy he has made in the decrees of the Catholic Councils.FN12 … FN12 “Erit necessarium, ad conservandum fidei unitatem, ut Conciliorum decreta recipiamus atque ad ea confugiamus.” – Letter to Zwingli
Dominic Bevan Wyndham Lewis, Charles of Europe (link to snippet) (link to book) (link to second copy of book)

14. „Si diutius steterit mundus, iterm erit necessarium, propter diversas scripturae interpretationes quae nunc sunt, ad conservandam fidei unitatem, ut conciliorum decreta recipiamus, atquae ea confugiamus.” List Lutra do Zwingli.
Aleksander Tyszyński, “Rozbiory i krytyki,” “Pczatki, Filozofii Krajowej,” Page 264, Footnote 1 (link)

15. Noverat hoc exitiosissimum periculum iam ipsemet LUTHERUS, qui teste Cochlaeo in l. de canon. Script. auctoritate c. II ingenue sassus est : „ Si diutius mundus steterit, iterum erit necessarium , ut ob divinas Scripturae interpretationes, quae nunc sunt, ad conservandam fidei unitatem concilii decreta recipiamus.”
Chrismann, Regula Fidei Catholicae et collection domatum …, p. 68 (link)

This may be updated at some point, for example, either as additional examples/details/etc. come to light, or as related readings in other languages are addressed. This was originally posted just after midnight London time on 23 January 2008. It will probably get backdated along with all the Luther citation materials, as it does not demand a great deal of further immediate attention. At the moment, the list exceeds the growing list at Armstrong’s corresponding page, in that it also includes the use by Ranolder, as well as the full text of the use by Wyndham (Armstrong was apparently unable to obtain the relevant text) and the use by Aleksander Tyszyński.

Adding the English usage will complicate the tree.

For example, we see Balmes’ English regurgitated in

Everett Pomeroy, “‘The Great Reformation’ a Great Mistake,” p. 13 (link) (1912)

But, on the other hand, we see Rheims’ English regurgitated in

Thomas Grave Law, “The Latin Vulgate as the Authentic Version of the Church,” p. 62 (link)

and

Will Converse Wood, “Five Problems of State and Religion,” p. 237 (link)

and quoted uncrtically:

Brooke Foss Westcott, “A General View of the History of the English Bible,” p. 257 (link)

On-Line Bibles

January 20, 2008

I’m pleased to announce that the German Bible Society has now made publicly available, via the internet, the text of:

The Hebrew Bible (BHS)
The LXX (Rahlfs/Hanhart)
The Nestle-Aland Critical Greek NT (NA27)
The Vulgate (Weber/Gryson)
and others

Get it here (link)
Thanks to Nick Norelli for bringing it to my attention (link).

-Turretinfan

A Quick Footnote to the Luther Citation Dialogue

January 13, 2008

UPDATE: I note that as of this update, Armstrong has micharacterized this post as: ” that [] Robert Bellarmine is the original Latin source (at least for the quote in isolation, if not its translation) .” That’s not what this post says or means. I invite readers to read the post for themselves. I’m not suggesting Bellarmine translated Luther from German to Latin. I’m not even suggesting that Bellarmine ever once saw the German original.

You may recall that Dave Armstrong had previously sought to present some sort of nuanced reductio ad absurdum one of the premises of which appeared to be that Leibniz is a genius and he cited Luther basically the same way as Steve Ray did.

Leaving many of the important issues aside, we should point out that Leibniz’s usage is quite likely simply taken from Bellarmine. Leibniz cites:

– Luthurus, praef. in psalmos

– Luthurus, lib 1. contra Zwinglium et Oecolampadium

– Brentius, prolegomenis contra Petrum a Soto

These citations are basically a shortening and reordering of citations that Bellarmine uses in

De Verbi Dei, Interpretatione, Book 3 (Liber Tertius), Chapter 1 (Caput I), towards the end of the chapter (p. 98 in this edition of Bellarmine’s works). Bellarmine places the contra Zwinglium et Oecolampadium citation first, lists several other citations from praef. in psalmos and provides several additional citations. In short, it looks like Leibniz copied down his citations from Bellarmine. Thus, we have no reason to think Leibniz ever considered the context (in the original – though he probably considered the context of Bellarmine’s own discussion) of the quotation that he provides.

Armstrong had noted some textual variations between a quotation from Bellarmine (which is not the quotation observed above) and the quotation from Leibniz. Actually, Leibniz uses essentially the version found at page 98, except that for “atque” he has “et” and he has removed some of the irregular capitalization. The change in sense between “atque” and “et” is rather nuanced in this case, and we could reasonably consider that Leibniz considered “atque” to be a typographic error. After all, “et” makes slightly better sense the way the rest of the sentence is presented at page 98. Furthermore, “sacrae” has been inserted, which could have simply been instinctive, as Scripture is frequently called “Holy Scripture.”

Since all of the other times we have found the quotation in Latin, we have seen “atque“, we may reasonably blame Leibniz for the change, rather than speculate that he had the “original” Latin (obviously, the original was ultimately the German of 1527, not the Latin of 1556). My opinion here would change if I discovered that the “original Latin” used “et” (or included “sacrae”), but I do not expect that to be the case.

The ease with which minor textual variations can occur can be seen from the differences between the quotations at pages 76 (identified by Armstrong) and 95.

The differences are:

capitalization:

p. 76 capitalizes “Si” and “Scripturae”
p. 98 capitalizes “Si”, “Mundus”, “Fidei”, and “Conciliorum”

p. 76 breaks up the quotation with “inquit”. This is not an important difference. “Inquit” is simply a word that translates to “he says” (link). Likewise, that it is not part of the quotation be seen from the fact that it is printed in plain face, not italics, like the remainder of the quotation. Armstrong seems to have missed this fact, although he noted the word as different from the presentation in the other instances he located.

p. 76 uses “erit” instead of “fore”. This is a slight semantic difference. Fore is the future infinitive of “to be” whereas “erit” is future active indicative.

p. 76 uses “ut” before “propter” rather than before “ad conservandum”. This seems simply to be matter of syntactic preference. (interestingly, Armstrong’s transcription misplaces the “propter diversas” in the reading from p. 76)

Mellini quotes from Bellarmine, p. 98, and gives Bellarmine credit (link).
Audisio generally follows Bellarmine’s p. 76 version (link).
Brunati generally follows Bellarmine’s p. 76 version (link).
Hallinen may have followed Bellarmine’s p. 76 version (link).
It’s a little hard to be sure, but Balmes may have obtained his version from page 76 of Bellarmine (link), via Audisio (note the same quotation from Beza is used by Balmes as was used by Audisio).

de Sales was a contemporary of Bellarmine, thus it is hard to make a definitive statement regarding derivation. de Sales quotation is more similar to Bellarmine p. 76 than to Bellarmine p. 98 (link). On the other hand de Sales’ editor seems to have located an “original” and added a footnote to it. Thus, de Sales’ editor may have corrected de Sales’ quotation to match the editor’s original.

At the end of the day, not a single Catholic apologist provided the context of the quotation, and it is entirely possible that only Bellarmine ever actually read the original (with the others copying more or less faithfully from the original) (also de Sales’ editor may have read the original, or may simply have located a copy of the original).

Is that exactly what Steve Ray did? I think we can say with assurance that Steve had not read either the original or any translation of the work from which his quotation. If he obtained it from Balmes, he may have obtained it third hand (not counting translations) from Balmes, via Audisio, via Bellarmine.

Hopefully eventually the Latin/German originals will be available.

Dave has posted this “German original” of the quotation in question, but it contains at least some errors:

“Und wo die wellt solt lenger stehen, wird man widderumb, wie die alten gethan haben, umb solche zwitracht willen auch menschliche anschlege suchen und abermal gesetze und gebot stellen, die leute ynn eintracht des glaubens zuerhalten, das wird denn auch gelingen, wie es zubor geungen ift.”

For example, it seems likely that the last word is “ist” not “ift.”

Interestingly, I found a secondary source in German that states:

Luther erflärte schon in einem seiner bessern Momente, das menn es mit der Zmentracht und der Anarchie aller Doctrinen so sortgebe, man am Ende zur Erhåltung der Einbeit der Glaubens zu den Beschlüssen der Concilien merde zurüeffehren můssen:

(link) (this work, as it turns out, is by a Catholic … I’m guessing he translated Bellarmine back into German for the purposes of providing this “quotation” rather than actually having read Luther’s original comments. The reverse translation is useful in demonstrating how far “off” the Latin translation is, whether that was an official or unofficial translation.)

In any event, the German original is rather hard to find, so we’ll have to wait and see if either the Latin or German contexts are provided by those who have promoted Luther’s comment as being an admission of the failure of sola scriptura.

We’re still waiting. Let’s what comes of the matter.

-Turretinfan

UPDATE: Paul Hoffer has kindly identified another usage that I had not addressed in the article above, namely the reference in the preface to the 1582 edition of the Rheims New Testament. Paul suggested that this year pre-dates Bellarmine, which Paul seems to think is a problem for my discussion above.

In answer: (a) Bellarmine’s printing actually appears to have begun 1581, with the first complete work being finished in 1586, but more importantly (b) his works were based on previous lectures, and (c) those lecture notes were widely disseminated according to the contemporary witness, Whittaker (see comments below). So, although Gregory Martin (the lead translator of the Rheims Bible) may not have gotten his quotation directly from Bellarmine’s printed works as such, a Bellarminic derivation may still be maintained.

Finally, of course, whether or not Bellarmine is the main or only source of the quotation for Catholic apologists is not the important issue. It is nifty to see that Leibniz apparently poached from Bellarmine, but the important thing to note is that not a single person who has quoted Luther has provided any more context than a reference to the treatise in which the quotation is alleged to be found.

Did any of them know the context? Is it a fair quotation or not? We are waiting to see.

FURTHER UPDATE: I notice that Armstrong has identified a further document that confirms Whitaker’s report that Cocholaeus first used the Luther quotation in question, and provides support for the theory that Bellarmine himself may have got his quotation from Cocholaeus rather than from an original document by Luther (which would explain the lack of context). Unfortunately, all we have so far on that investigation is Chrismann citing Cocholaeus (link), and not Cocholaeus’ original work. Armstrong has some textual musings, but his explanations regarding derivation fall short. If anyone needs a more detailed explanation, I could provide. Otherwise, I’ll just let my judgment stand as a bare assertion.

Apparently now with the help of Whitaker and Chrismann we have pushed a possible decontextualization back to Cocholaeus – with Bellarmine deriving his quotations from Cocholaeus. In order to verify or discredit that theory, we need to see Cocholaeus’ original (apparently the book cited at footnote 31, here), to determine whether Chrismann cited verbatim or whether Chrismann paraphrased Cocholaeus.

There’s more to be said on the Coch/Bell connection, but time does not permit at present.

FURTHER UPDATE: Ok, so there is evidence from Bellarmine’s own works that he used Cochlaeus’ work from which Chrismann quotes, see page 32 of the same “Works of Bellarmine” to which the p. 76 and p. 98 quotations refer. This seems to confirm that Bellarmine himself may have piggybacked on Cochlaeus’ work, rather than reading Luther’s original statement in context.

ADDITIONAL UPDATE: Here’s a Cochlaeus original, in “snippet.” (link) This suggests that Chrismann may have copied badly from Cochlaeus.

Cochlaeus writes: “Si diutius steterit mud, iteru erit necessariu, ut, ppter diversas Scripture interpretationes, q nunc sunt, ad coservandum fidei unitatem, Concilioru …” (the snippet view fails at this point … some more clever person can find a way to get the rest of Cochlaeus’ quotation) There’s also a bit before the quotation, which would seem to demonstrate that Cochlaeus provided a citation of some sort, which would explain why others might cite piggybacking on Cochlaeus’ citation. (By the way, note that I write: “a” Cochlaeus original, as Cochlaeus may have recycled this quotation in multiple works.)

YET A NEW UPDATE: Should one wish to obtain a copy (link).


%d bloggers like this: