Difference between revisions of "Category:OT Apocrypha Studies--1500s"

From 4 Enoch: : The Online Encyclopedia of Second Temple Judaism, and Christian and Islamic Origins
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 1: Line 1:
==Overview==
==Overview==


The reformation reopened the debate about the "apocryphal" books of Jerome. This time, however, at stake was not the ''Hebraica veritas'' but the ''Latina veritas''. By denying the Latina veritas the Reformation intended to challenge the authority of the Roman Catholic Church to define the canon in the name of its tradition, while the Roman Catholic church at the Council of Trent (1546) pursued the opposite view: “If any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate . . . let him be anathema.”
The Reformation reopened the debate about the "apocryphal" books of Jerome. This time, however, at stake was not the ''Hebraica veritas'' but the ''Latina veritas''. By denying the Latina veritas the Reformation intended to challenge the authority of the Roman Catholic Church to define the canon in the name of its tradition, while the Roman Catholic church at the Council of Trent (1546) pursued the opposite view: “If any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate . . . let him be anathema.”


In 1549, as a direct reaction against the pronouncement of the Council of Trent, English reformer [[Richard Taverner]] removed from the English Bible he had published in 1539 the "apocryphal" books of Jerome and published them as an autonomous book, titled ''The Volume of the Bokes called Apocripha'' (London: John Day and William Seres, 1549). The Roman Catholic reply came in 1566 from [[Sixtus of Siena]]; he coined the term "deuterocanonici" in recognition of Jerome's doubts, but also to stress that the particular status of that body of literature did not diminish in any way their canonicity.  
In 1549, as a direct reaction against the pronouncement of the Council of Trent, English reformer [[Richard Taverner]] removed from the English Bible he had published in 1539 the "apocryphal" books of Jerome and published them as an autonomous book, titled ''The Volume of the Bokes called Apocripha'' (London: John Day and William Seres, 1549). The Roman Catholic reply came in 1566 from [[Sixtus of Siena]]; he coined the term "deuterocanonici" in recognition of Jerome's doubts, but also to stress that the particular status of that body of literature did not diminish in any way their canonicity.  

Revision as of 08:07, 6 April 2014

Overview

The Reformation reopened the debate about the "apocryphal" books of Jerome. This time, however, at stake was not the Hebraica veritas but the Latina veritas. By denying the Latina veritas the Reformation intended to challenge the authority of the Roman Catholic Church to define the canon in the name of its tradition, while the Roman Catholic church at the Council of Trent (1546) pursued the opposite view: “If any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate . . . let him be anathema.”

In 1549, as a direct reaction against the pronouncement of the Council of Trent, English reformer Richard Taverner removed from the English Bible he had published in 1539 the "apocryphal" books of Jerome and published them as an autonomous book, titled The Volume of the Bokes called Apocripha (London: John Day and William Seres, 1549). The Roman Catholic reply came in 1566 from Sixtus of Siena; he coined the term "deuterocanonici" in recognition of Jerome's doubts, but also to stress that the particular status of that body of literature did not diminish in any way their canonicity.

While reaching opposite conclusions, both Tavenier and Sixtus treated the OT Apocrypha/deuterocanici as a distinctive body of literature. Each of them could have relied on the traditional opposition between the "canonical" and "non-canonical" and get rid of any gray area in between, yet they surprisingly agreed in creating an hybrid. According to Tavernier the OT Apocrypha were not canonical, yet they had not be confused with the other "non-canonical" texts. According to Sixtus, the Deuterocanonici were canonical, yet they had not to be confused with the other canonical text.

The two works of Taverner and Sextus set the parameters of the international debate on the Deuterocanonici / OT Apocrypha for the centuries to come.

Pages in category "OT Apocrypha Studies--1500s"

The following 36 pages are in this category, out of 36 total.

 

(

1

Retrieved from "https://4enoch.org/wiki5/index.php?title=Category:OT_Apocrypha_Studies--1500s&oldid=155435"