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

OT Apocrypha Studies (1500s) The page: OT Apocrypha Studies--1500s includes (in chronological order) scholarly and literary works in the field of OT Apocrypha Studies made in the 16th century, or from 1500 to 1599. Highlights (1450s) Interpreters (1450s)

Timeline (1500s) OT Apocrypha Studies : 2020s -- 2010s -- 2000s -- 1990s -- 1980s -- 1970s -- 1960s -- 1950s -- 1940s -- 1930s -- 1920s -- 1910s -- 1900s -- 1850s -- 1800s -- 1700s -- 1600s -- 1500s -- 1450s -- Home Timeline : 2020s -- 2010s -- 2000s -- 1990s -- 1980s -- 1970s -- 1960s -- 1950s -- 1940s -- 1930s -- 1920s -- 1910s -- 1900s -- 1850s -- 1800s -- 1700s -- 1600s -- 1500s -- 1450s -- Medieval -- Home {{{title}}} OT Apocrypha Studies : English -- French -- German -- Italian -- Spanish -/- Other

History of Research (1500s) -- Notes

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 corpus of the OT Apocrypha was born. 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.