Hesse, The Canons of the Council of Sardica, Oxford 1958, p. 342-343), at which Gratus was present (c. Indeed, it does not depend solely on the date of Sardica (a. The date for the council is still uncertain. SAECVLI QVARTI = THE FOURTH CENTURY (p.xix-xxii) So I will translate most of the material relating to fourth century councils.Īs in my previous post, I don’t intend to post everything – just enough so that those working with Munier’s book can get a handle on what they’re looking at.ĬONSPECTUS CHRONOLOGICUS = CHRONOLOGICAL OVERVIEW But it is cunningly hidden behind a bibliography, and I certainly never realised how important it was. ![]() As I wrote in my previous post, this is a very dense and hard to understand preface, but anybody working with the book needs to know what is in it. Let’s continue with our description of the material in the Latin preface to Munier’s Concilia Africae a. How funny that Latin so well-used and copied should be corrupt! I infer that nobody, nobody, really read it that hard! More interesting was a note to one canon where the translator said that the Latin was a mess and he followed the Greek translation instead. At one point he just sticks the Latin word in here or there, untranslated, unfootnoted. The translation veers between very literal and almost paraphrase. At one point the translator mysteriously dropped into Jacobean English! Thee and thou appeared all over the place and then vanished again. I think that I will largely use them as is, with minor tweaks. This evening I have been copying and pasting the relevant portions to a word document, in order to work on them further. This contains stuff that I need to include mostly canons of the second session of the Council of Carthage. The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers translated the Register of the church of Carthage, a collection of canons appended to the council of 419 (?) by the 6th century editor Dionysius Exiguus. What a way to spend the 1960s! I myself will be more than glad to be rid of this one. It is telling that Munier says that he spent ten years on this onerous task. This is still true but I had no conception of the sheer difficulty in working with this mass of material. I felt the answer was to present the context the other canons, and material produced by the councils. But then that is exactly what the books all do. ![]() This only works if you only quote canon 36, however. I started with the widespread conception that the Councils of Hippo and Carthage “decided” by vote what should be in the canon of scripture. I’m trying to remember, in all this, what that original objective was. I have a feeling, tho, that the first course is the only possible course for what I want to do. Munier tried to follow some kind of transmission unit. It is a very tangled mass of stuff.Įditors like Mansi simply gathered together what belonged to each council. I think that the problem is caused by the material a mass of stuff, repeated, revised, edited, abbreviated, reordered, through council after council, source after source. The problem is not with the edition of Charles Munier, although this is not fun to work with. I’m still not quite sure how to arrange all the material. Despite all that I have done on this in the last twelve months, it has been rather awful. I have spent a very busy afternoon, pulling together most of the pieces of the Council of Hippo (393) and the two sessions of the Council of Carthage (397). I need to thank those who commented on the original blog posts, especially Bill North and Diego, for rescuing me from many a misunderstanding. These two files do not seem like very much, as the output from the labour of most of a year, but they are what they are. Use it in any way you choose, personal, education, or commercial. docx)Īs usual, this material is public domain.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |