Posted on 08/27/2017 7:11:12 PM PDT by marshmallow
The earliest Latin commentary on the Gospels, lost for more than 1,500 years, has been rediscovered and made available in English for the first time. The extraordinary find, a work written by a bishop in northern Italy, Fortunatianus of Aquileia, dates back to the middle of the fourth century.
The biblical text of the manuscript is of particular significance, as it predates the standard Latin version known as the Vulgate. and provides new evidence about the earliest form of the Gospels in Latin.
Despite references to this commentary in other ancient works, no copy was known to survive until Dr Lukas Dorfbauer, a researcher from the University of Salzburg, identified Fortunatianus’ text in an anonymous manuscript copied around the year 800 and held in Cologne Cathedral Library. The manuscripts of Cologne Cathedral Library were made available online in 2002.
Scholars had previously been interested in this ninth-century manuscript as the sole witness to a short letter which claimed to be from the Jewish high priest Annas to the Roman philosopher Seneca. They had dismissed the 100-page anonymous Gospel commentary as one of numerous similar works composed in the court of Charlemagne. But when he visited the library in 2012, Dorfbauer, a specialist in such writings, could see that the commentary was much older than the manuscript itself.
In fact, it was none other than the earliest Latin commentary on the Gospels.
(Excerpt) Read more at theconversation.com ...
Very interesting, thanks for posting.
I have a feeling this Vatican will want this find turned over to them forthwith and not circulating out there among the faithful long.
Really? Why’s that, do you think?
Paper tape?
Thinking here, that this awesome find will naturally prove to be a Church treasure— ie., too Traditional, too Latin, too faith filled, and entirely too Catholic.
This pope may be inclined to call it too rigid, to holier than thou, too non-pastoral, un-accompanying, too un-accommodating, too sentimental, too non-ecumenical toward ISIS among the refugees, you know his usual word routine.
Ping.
Started reading the English translation but had to stop. 118 pages without paragraphs.
Started reading the English translation but had to stop. 118 pages without paragraphs.
= = =
You should be used to that, reading posts on FR.
Thanks for posting this. It’s fantastic stuff:
Likewise Solomon too speaks about the Lord from the
character of the Church: My brother, he says, is fair and red, pierced by the multitude. In order that the Lord should fulfill these prophecies, he sent forth blood with
water from his side when he had been struck by the soldier’s spear. So this is the redness of blood that has been shown, as the preaching of the prophets demonstrates:
it seemed to be hidden by the cloud of the Law and prophecy until the coming of the Lord. But after the Son of God had suffered, these were taken away and he gave calmness to the earth, making evident to all believers that his Passion
had been proclaimed by the prophets.
I don’t care who you are that’s funny, right there but I downloaded the pdfs and the Adobe android app renders them with paragraphs nicely.
Wow! THANKS!
OK there aren’t a lot of paragraphs :/
For Isaiah had said
that God himself [320] would give a sign and, as if he had been questioned what that
sign was, he replied: Behold, a virgin will conceive in her womb and she will bear a
son and so on.81 After the seventy-two translators had translated the whole Law from
Hebrew into Greek at the order of Ptolemy, working separately but as if with one
voice and account, some corruptors and scriptural interpolators from among the
Jews made this paragraph read not ‘virgin’ but ‘young woman’.82 For what sign
would the Lord be said to give, [325] if a young woman was with child from a man?
This is the way of nature. But the Lord promised a sign, that a virgin would have to
give birth to Emmanuel, which is ‘God with us’. Jeremiah also speaks about this as
follows: This is our God and no other will be held in consideration. He was seen on the
land and he conversed with humans.83 This, therefore, is Emmanuel, ‘God with us’,
whom the Virgin Mary produced. Joseph was taught by the angel [330] without delay
what he should do about this matter, and he carried it out.
Next it says: And rising from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord instructed him
and he accepted his wife and was not intimate with her until she gave birth to a son,
and he called his name Jesus.84 As for the words He was not intimate with her until shegave birth, these strike many with unease, although only those of the flesh, not
those of the spirit, [335] as if, because it had said ‘until’, Joseph was intimate with her
after Jesus was born. But whoever is of a sound mind, and spiritual, ought not to
suppose that Joseph, a righteous man who both saw visions of angels and learnt
what he should do from the information of an angel, would have been able to defile
Mary. He had learnt that from her the Son of God would be born, to whom the angel
also told him to give the name Jesus, meaning ‘Saviour’. How could it have been the
case that the righteous man Joseph, who [340] is found to be appointed as Mary’s
custodian, who held onto the sign which the prophets said would come to pass
among the people, that such a man should put Mary to the test for the sake of de-
sire? For it is evident that angels have always appeared to holy and chaste men.
Therefore, had Joseph not set his steps firmly on the path of virtue, I think that he
would never have been able to see visions of angels and have learnt what he should
do from their suggestion. [345] What is more, if this claim were true, Jesus would
surely never have said to Mary his mother in the middle of his Passion Behold your
son with regard to the disciple John, and to John himself Behold your mother. And
that disciple took her in to his home from that day.85 It is therefore agreed that the
most holy Mary remained so after having given birth to Jesus, and that she always
followed him and later devoted herself to prayers with the apostles, as is found in
the Acts [350] of the Apostles: All these people were single-mindedly devoting them-
selves to prayer, with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus and his brothers.86
We see here too that the character of Mary is set apart: if she were considered a woman of the same sort as the others, she would undoubtedly have been included with them. But when it says with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, we see that Mary surpasses women, just as we find in the story of Moses and Aaron: But Mary, going before, [355] saying ‘Let us sing to the Lord’ and so on.87 She went before women for the reason that she was a virgin. Thus this Mary, too, who was a woman in that she gave birth, was a virgin so far as a man is concerned. It is not inappropriate that she is not listed among the women but is treated separately, and it says with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus.
We believe that, in accordance with the prophecy of Simeon, she was put to death by the sword, because he said to her: And a sword will pass through your own soul.88 [360] For the reason that James and Jude are called the brothers of the Lord is undoubtedly not because they were born of Mary, but they were sons of Joseph from another wife. They were called the brothers of the Lord by normal custom because of Joseph, since he was from the same tribe, or Mary, since she was called the wife of Joseph. So far as the Jews are concerned, they not only said that Jesus had brothers and sisters, but they even said that he was the son of Joseph the craftsman. They never stopped repeating this, putting him to the test while he was teaching them: [365] Behold, your brothers are standing outside, wishing to speak with you.89 Elsewhere, when they noticed the miracles of his powers, which without doubt could not have been performed by a human, they said in wonder: Isn’t this the son of Joseph the craftsman, whose brothers we know and whose sisters were with us?90 So they were astounded at his wonders, not understanding the sayings of the prophets that the Son of God would do such things when he came.
.
Doubt it.
It will stay put where it is.
The excuses are falling flat.
Thanks! I will be reading this later.
Thanks for the ping. Very interesting. I wonder how much this commentary differs from the Vulgate.
I downloaded them also, before the Pope deletes them.
I look forward to reading commentary from a time before ‘dynamic’ society would dictate a change in the Gospels. Like today, when “The Church must adjust” (barf).
I expect to find the Gospels UNCHANGED.
For Isaiah had said that God himself [320] would give a sign and, as if he had been questioned what that sign was, he replied: Behold, a virgin will conceive in her womb and she will bear a son and so on.81 After the seventy-two translators had translated the whole Law from Hebrew into Greek at the order of Ptolemy, working separately but as if with one voice and account, some corruptors and scriptural interpolators from among the Jews made this paragraph read not ‘virgin’ but ‘young woman’
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.