Bouhier Commentary on the Athanasian Creed

Steven Avery

Administrator

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS AND TO THE TE DEUM - BY A. E. BURN, B.D. Trinity College, Cambridge - Rector of Kynnersley, Wellington, Salop - Examining Chaplain to the Lord Bishop of Lichfield. - First published Methuen & Co 1899. - This Edition prepared for katapi by Paul Ingram 2003.
http://www.katapi.org.uk/CreedsIntro/Ch7.htm

V. the early commentaries​

An important argument, to prove the existence of the entire text of the Quicunque in the eighth century or earlier, may be founded on the early commentaries, and is independent of others. There are some seven which come into consideration here. Four of them (Bouhier, Oratorian, Paris, Troyes) have been published by Ommanney [Early History, pp.1-39, 311-386.] , who has made this subject specially his own, and for whose work as a pioneer all students must be grateful. The others (Orleans, Stavelot, Fortunatus) I have edited (in part from new MSS.) in my book on The Athanasian Creed and its Commentaries. [Texts and Studies, iv.1.] As I shall quote the readings of the texts of the creed embedded in them in my apparatus criticus, it will suffice here to give a short summary of the facts known about each:-

4. The Bouhier Commentary.-​

The Bouhier Commentary is found in some four MSS., the earliest of which is of the tenth century (Troyes, 1979), and belonged formerly to the Bouhier family of Dijon. The other MSS. also seem to have been written in France. The text of the creed cited in it shows late readings, and I cannot assign to it an earlier date than the beginning of the ninth century. It is mainly founded on the Oratorian Commentary, and was constructed with some literary skill. The personal statements of the preface are omitted or changed, e.g. "in ueteribus codicibua inuenitur praetitulatum" for "eum uidi praet. etiam in uet. cod."
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Early history of the Athanasian creed. With an appendix containing four ancient commentaries, three of which are now printed for the first time, etc (1880)
George Druce W. Ommanney
https://books.google.com/books?id=cN8CAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA360
https://archive.org/details/earlyhistoryath00ommagoog/page/360/mode/2up

1660706396116.png


Hoc est enim vera trinitas, tres unum esse. Unde Johannes apostolus dicit: Et tres unum sunt. Sequitur. Neque confundentes personas, neque substantiam separantes. Sabellius, quia intellexit unum esse trinitatis substantiam, ideo confundens personas, ipsum sibi Patrem, ipsum sibi Filium, ipsum Spiritum Sanctum, esse dicebat.

For this is the true trinity, that three are one. Wherefore John the Apostle says: And the three are one. It follows. Neither confounding the persons, nor separating the substance. Sabellius, because he understood that the substance of the trinity is one, therefore confounding the persons, said that he was the Father himself, the Son himself, the Holy Spirit himself.

1660706815412.png
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Texts and Studies: Contributions to Biblical and Patristic Literature Volume 2 Part 2 (1896)
Joseph Armitage Robinson
https://books.google.com/books?id=nms3AAAAIAAJ&pg=PR46
Look at Bouhier in this volume and check "tres unum" Fortunatus commentary p. 29

1660707058920.png


1660707630437.png


ostcndit: ubi sub jtlumli muncru omnis uirtut corum dicit, trinitatcm |>er-
aonarum ajHrrte demonstrate quia tres unum aunt et unum tres. Kkqur
 
Last edited:
Top