Glossa Ordinaria and the canon


#1

It has been suggested to me that in the prologue to the Glossa Ordinario, the writer designates the
deuterocanonicals as apocrypha and states they are not inspired Scripture. I know this cannot be possible, but cannot finds a copy of this to refute him. Any suggestions?


#2

When you say, “It has been suggested to me,” do you mean you have not personally checked to see whether that is what the Prologue actually says?

And a separate question.—Who is the author of the Prologue? Is it one of the original compilers of the Glossa Ordinaria, such as Anselm of Laon or Walafrid Strabo? Or is it a modern editor? And, in this case, is the editor a Catholic or a Protestant?


#3

Have you asked the person who made this claim for his/her proof?


#4

I would love to have a copy so I can read. The claim is being made by a Protestant. It a a claim made by none other than William Webster. I am trying to refute, but cant find the source.


#5

There is no specificity about the proliue. It is bald statement.


#6

#7

I did a quick, superficial google search when I was replying to your OP and my impression is that the Glossa Ordinaria simply isn’t available anywhere online. I found a French site where they said they were planning to upload the whole thing, book by book, over a very long period: “The publication of the entirety of the Glossa will undoubtedly take several decades.” However, from what I saw in my brief look at the site, the most recent post there is dated 2010 …
http://glossae.net/en/content/project-electronic-edition-glossa-ordinaria-bible


#8

In the circumstances, I think the wisest course is to challenge your Protestant friend to produce some evidence to substantiate that claim. (1) “Please quote the exact words you read in the Prologue.” (2) “Who is the author of that Prologue? A medieval monk or a twentieth century academic?”


#9

Thanks for this. I will bookmark it. Very thorough. I did not realize that Carthage and hippo were ordinary mag3sterium. I thought they only applied to North Africa.


#10

I have found the Orologure to the Deuterocanonicals by Jerome. The issue is that he is citing the prologue (didnt specify which one, but this is it.) As the teaching of the Western Church. When it is Jeromes teaching. We all know from his prefaces to his translations, that he did not consider them canon. We also know that his was rather a minority view. We have already discussed Jerome so I will point that out. I did not realize Hippo and Carthage are ordinary magisterium, so that is another point.


#11
  1. Proof is on the accuser. “Show me the money!” There is a chance that he has consulted with a source that uses snippets out of context, is simply wrong, deceptive or even lying.
  2. Ask him/her if any part of the bible is inspired. Since it makes no such claim, ask him who made that decision.
  3. Ask where the “Sacred Table of Contents came from”, since there were
    hundreds of early writings all competing for inclusion. A: The Catholic
    Church and no one else.
  4. 90-91% of the OT quotes in the NT, including those by our Lord, are
    from the Septuagint collection, which contained the Deuterocanonical
    books.
  5. Ask for his certificate of authority to declare writings inspired or not inspired.
  6. Have a read: https://www.catholiceducation.org/en/religion-and-philosophy/apologetics/5-myths-about-7-books.html

#12

Actually what I found was Jerome’s prologue to Song of Songs. Ugh.


#13

Ah, okay. Anyway, let me go ahead and post the reply I just wrote to your earlier comment about Jerome.

I have never read the full text of what Jerome wrote about the deuterocanonicals. I’m aware that he drew a distinction of some kind between these books and the others, but on the other hand he held a senior post of some kind under Pope Damasus and in that capacity he acted as the main organizer of the Council of Rome in 382 that formally adopted the full 73-book canon of the Bible. As far as I’m aware, he made no attempt, on that occasion, to split the OT into two parts, one ranking higher than the other.


#14

Good information. Thanks.


#15

Yes, we have been through these things. I have already asked for a primary source, since Ebster cites himself. He gave me Bill Webster’s answer to Gary Michuta a aomin. Told him i need proof, bot an apologetic site. I found the Glossa Ordinaria online, but it is in Latin. Any fluent readers want to take a stab at reading the Prologue to see whether the Deuterocanonicals were rendered unscriptural or not?


#16

A new wrinkle. He provided the sources as such.

“For example, the following is an excerpt from the Prologue to the Glossa ordinaria written in AD 1498, also found in a work attributed to Walafrid Strabo in the tenth century, under the title of canonical and noncanonical books, catalogues the precise books which make up the Old Testament canon,>>5<<< and those of the noncanonical Apocrypha,>>>6<<< all in accordance with the teaching of Jerome.”

Please see that his statement contains to footnote references (#5 & #6) which i have highlighted with >>><<<. If you look below that paragraph to the footnotes that conclude the bottom of the article, you will see the excerpt that he mentioned and the references from which it was taken under footnotes 5 & 6 with the sources references for each statement at the end of each footnote.

The source for #5 is: (Biblia cum glosa ordinaria et expositione Lyre litterali et morali. Basel: Petri & Froben, 1498. British Museum IB.37895, vol. 1. Translation by Dr. Michael Woodward. See also Walafrid Strabo, Glossa ordinaria, De Canonicis et Non Canonicis Libris. PL 113:19-24).

And for #6 it is: (Biblia cum glosa ordinaria et expositione Lyre litterali et morali (Basel: Petri & Froben, 1498), British Museum IB.37895, Vol. 1. Translation by Dr. Michael Woodward. See also Walafrid Strabo, Glossa ordinaria, De Canonicis et Non Canonicis Libris. PL 113:19-24).

I don’t see a self-reference by Webster in either case.
Manage


#17

Trent spoke. It is settled. He accepts or rejects it at his own peril.

Consider the original name of Sirach: Ecclesiasticus - “Church book”

Now, just how do you suppose it got that name?


#18

I would like to show that Webster is misleading.


#19

This topic was automatically closed 14 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.