It was expressed about the Council of Trent, session IV, 8 April 1546. As in every session of the Council of Trent, it is necessary to distinguish the first decree, the dogmatic ( de fide) from the second decree, disciplinary ( de reformatione ). The first decree matter perennial giccché defines dogmaticamente il Canone delle Scritture. Il secondo è riformabile.
Il 1° decreto è intitolato “Recipiuntur libri sacri et traditiones apostolorum”.
Dopo aver riportato l’elenco dei libri dell’Antico e del Nuovo Testamento, il Concilio dice:
Si quis autem libros ipsos integros cum omnibus suis partibus, prout in Ecclesia Catholica legi consueverunt et in veteri vulgata latina editione habentur, pro sacris et canonicis non susceperit, et traditiones praedictas sciens et prudens contempserit: anathema sit .
Il criterio per discernere i libri sacri è il fatto di essere contenuti nell'antica edizione vulgata latina, mediante la quale “in Ecclesia Catholica legislative consueverunt.
The Latin Vulgate is a collection of books at the time of the Council of Trent from 1000 years now the Catholic Church was reading the word of God This is the criterion adopted by the Council Fathers to define which books are canonical: the Church's living tradition . For a thousand years the books in the Vulgate were read in the Church as the word of God, which led to the liturgy, prayer, theological reflection.
In the second decree (de reformatione ) is prescribed in the liturgy instead of the Vulgate and other translations or the originals, it also states that in theological discussions, the summons of the Vulgate have evidential value. Unlike the first decree the second speaks of translation as such. since this is a decree regulating and non-dogmatic, can not be said that as the Vulgate translation is not improved. So much so that after the Catholic Church has reformed the second decree, when Pope John Paul II published the Nova Vulgate, in 1979 (second edition in 1985). The Nova Vulgata reform and correct the Vulgate as a translation. Consequently, the commentators can freely criticize the translation of a particular step is in the Vulgate. Nor is there only one possible translation, nor the translation of the Vulgate is the only option.
Back to dogmatic decree, where the Vulgate as a reference to "place" where to find the holy books and their parts. In part that contains the definition of faith that the decree can not be reformed.
We pause to comment briefly on the phrase by which the Cocilio of Trento welcomes the books of the Old and New Testaments, "cum omnibus suis partibus integrates books," as contained in the old Latin Vulgate edition.
What the Council Fathers intended to supplement books? It seems related to the transfer of the text. For example, in the Gospel of Luke recounts that Jesus, in the Garden, sweated blood. Not all manuscripts have this sentence (the earliest to fail), but a tradition has been handed down and it is included in the Vulgate. Therefore, if the textual criticism coming to the conclusion that the blood of sdore appaartiene archetype of the text, not necessarily the Catholic faithful will deny the sacred character of the verse excised.
A most important case is that of John 7.53 to 8.11, which contains the famous passage on adultery. However, it is lacking in the earliest manuscripts: Codex Beza appears from trdizione and is binding in later manuscripts. There are also important domestic reasons (especially the Johannine terms, do not you use) that lead scholars to rule out that the passage was part of the archetype of John. Even so, the percipoe is considered non-canonical. Indeed, the Fathers of Trento, expressly stating in their discussions with the word "book supplements" affirm the canonical understood. The Catholic faithful are free to accept the conclusions of textual criticism, which expunge the passage from the reconstruction of the archetype of John, but the passage itself and retains its value of Sacred Scripture. It is a sacred text in cnonico, written by unknown author, preserved in the Church and, from the fifth century, contained in the Gospel according to John. When chapters are numbered in the Middle Ages, the passage is on the border between the 7th and 8th chapter of John.
Another case, also raised in the discussions expressly conciliar that of Mark from 16.9 to 20, the "long end" of the Gospel. It is lacking in the earliest manuscripts, which ended in Mark 16.8, in words that the reader sends a strong inteprellano their views on the resurrection of Jesus ( did not say anything to anyone because they were afraid ). The syntax of Mark from 16.9 to 20 is different from the rest of the Gospel. Furthermore, the author shows to know the Easter story of Matthew, Luke and John. It seems logical to infer that the conclusion was added by an editor other than the Evangelist, to offer readers, dissatisfied with the original closed, an account of the harmonious appearance of the resurrected. Now, perhaps this assessment shows into question the canon of sacred and 16.9 to 20 Mc? The response of the Fathers of Trent is negative. The conclusion of the Gospel was read by the Church as the word of God and the Church's tradition is a source of knowledge of revelation. Putting two and two, it can be concluded that it was composed of 16.9 to 20 Mc inspired by an author whose name is not known.
now consider the expression reconcile "cum omnibus suis partibus". There are books in the Bible composite character. Eg., Daniele has 12 chapters in Semitic languages \u200b\u200b(Hebrew and Aramaic). They have been translated into greek and formed part of the LXX version. This version also picked up two short books, the story of Susanna and the book tells the story of Bel and the Serpent: In both Daniele appears as a character. In the various manuscripts of the LXX the two little books have different locations. As in the story of Susanna Daniel is a child, in some manuscripts of this book is initially separated before the book of Daniel (with 12 chapters in the Semitic language) and eventually added instead Bel and the Serpent.
St. Jerome, when retranslated the Hebrew prophets (and in the case of Daniel, in part Aramaic), placed the story of Susanna and Bel in the appendix to the book of Daniel. In the Middle Ages the two appendages became the 13 th and 14 th chapter of Daniel.
In light of the Council of Trent, we can not say that only 1-12 Dn is sacred and canonical because they are sacred and canonical the books in the Vulgate, as they were read in the tradition of the Church.
's comment, finally, the term used by the Council, when speaking of the Vulgate as "edition". No way, therefore, as a translation. The Council is rather refer to the editorial work, consitent in the selection of books. Who copied by hand has chosen to enter the four Gospels known to us and to leave out the Gospel of Thomas or the Gospel of the Ebionites.
We said that the Vulgate as a translation can be reviewed. They did Pope Sixtus and Clement (with-Clementine edition Sisto) and he did John Paul II (leading to completion as initiated by Paul VI) with the New Vulgate.
It 'also important to identify the Vulgate speaks of the Council of Trent with the Sixtus-Clementina. The dogmatic decree of Trent speaks of the "old Latin Vulgate edition. Now, in 1546 the Sixtus-Clementine Vulgate did not exist. It has been prepared pursuant to Decree II (disciplinary) was first published by Pope Sixtus, who intervened freely in the text, with corrections and improvements alleged language, then by Pope Clement, who eliminated the corrections made by his predecessor.
the ancient Latin Vulgate editions are now scientific criticism, which seeks to present the archetype, riucostruito through the collation of extant manuscripts. They are Stuttgartensia the Biblia Sacra, edited by R. Weber, Biblia Vulgata and the Abbey of San Benedetto in Urbe (started at the behest of Paul VI). Unfortunately, this latest edition contains only the Old Testament, nor is it expected that the work be stopped now continued.
0 comments:
Post a Comment