Speculum

Steven Avery

Administrator
Witness of God is Greater

Augustine Codex Speculum (circa 425 AD)
The Codex Speculum or Speculum Ps-Augustine, designated by m, is a 5th-century Latin manuscript of the New Testament. The text, written on vellum, is a version of the old Latin. The manuscript contains passages from all the books of the New Testament except 3 John, Hebrews, and Philemon on 154 parchment leaves.[1] It also has a citation from the Epistle to the Laodiceans.[2] The Latin text of the codex is a representative of the Western text-type in itala recension.[3] The text of the manuscript was published by Cardinal Mai in 1843.[2][3] Currently it is housed at the Saint Cross monastery (Sessorianus) in Rome.[1]
(Codex Speculum. Wikipedia. <en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Speculum>)

[Wiseman] The work [St. Augustine's Speculum] which we are considering consists of upwards of one hundred heads, including the most important points of Christian belief and practice. Upon each of these subjects all the texts of the Old and New Testaments are given, without a single remark or illustration. In the main, the work is nearly the same as was published under the title of St. Augustine's Speculum, by Jerome Vignier." But it differs in one most important particular, that the text used in our manuscript is not the version of St. Jerome in the Old, nor his correction in the New [PAGE 14] Testament, but the old Vulgate found in the quotations of the Fathers, and collected in the great works of Nobilius, Bianchini, and Sabbatier. It in fact supplies many lacunae in the latter invaluable work, and is therefore a precious addition to our stores of sacred criticism. Indeed, the active and intelligent librarian of Santa Croce is preparing the entire work for publication, chiefly with a view to amending and improving our text of the ancient Vulgate." The manuscript itself is a quarto on vellum : the character is uncial and square, resembling in form and size the Latin of the Codex Bezae or Cambridge MS. of the New Testament. It is, on the whole, beautifully written, and one must be cautious not to judge it from the specimen given by Bianchini,” whose facsimiles, from not being traced, will be often found incorrect." There can be no danger in attributing it to the sixth or seventh century. A fac-simile of it is prefixed to this essay. To come now to the most important point; this work quotes the text of the Heavenly Witnesses, as a dogmatical proof of the Trinity. (Wiseman, "Two Letters on 1 John v. 7, commonly called the Three Witnesses: Letter 1" in Essays on Various Subjects, 1853, vol 1, p. 13-14)

HITS:
● Speculum Chapter 1. And again in that place, "Because there are three that give testimony in earth, the spirit, the water, and the blood: and these three are one in Christ Jesus. And three there are that give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Spirit and these three are one."
(Speculum: Liber de divinis scripturis. Chapter I., CSEL 12:314; Mai 1852: p. 6)

○ Latin: Item illic: Quoniam tres sunt qui testimonium dicunt in terra, spiritus, aqua et sanguis: et hii tres unum sunt in christo iesu. et tres sunt qui testimonium dicunt in caelo, pater, uerbum et spiritus: et hii tres unum sunt.
(Speculum: Liber de divinis scripturis. Chapter I, CSEL 12:314; Mai 1852: PAGE 6)

● Speculum Chapter 3. Again in Epistle 1 of John: "The Spirit is the who delivers the witness, because the Spirit is the truth." Again in that place, "Three there are who bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one."
(Augustine, Speculum: Liber de divinis scripturis. Chapter III, CSEL 12:325-326; Mai 1852, p. 9-10)

○ Latin: Item iohannes in epistula I: Spiritus est qui testimonium reddit, quia spiritus est ueritas. Item illic: Tres sunt qui testimonium dicunt in caelo, pater, uerbum et spiritus, et hii tres unum sunt.
(Augustine, Speculum: Liber de divinis scripturis. Chapter III, CSEL 12:325-326; Mai 1852, p. 9-10)
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Grantley - RGA p. 30

Secondly, it has often been claimed that Augustine cited the comma in a work called Speculum, but this claim is based on a confusion between two treatises called Speculum, sometimes found together in the same manuscripts, only one of which—Speculum “Quis ignorat”, the one that does not contain the comma—was written by the great African Father.35

35 The presence of the comma in the Speculum, first publicised in two letters published by Nicholas (later cardinal) Wiseman in 1832 and 1833 (repr. in Wiseman, 1853, 1:5-70), has caused some confusion, since there are two treatises of this name attributed to Augustine, both of which are included in Weihrich’s edition in CSEL 12: the Speculum “Quis ignorat” and the Speculum “Audi Israhel”.

Speculum “Quis ignorat”


Only the first of these—preserved in Munich, BSB clm 14513 (ninth century); Chartres ms 33 (ninth century); Sankt Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek ms 137 (tenth century); Vatican, BAV cod. Pal. 198 (tenth or eleventh century); Paris, BnF ms. lat. 2473 (thirteenth century)—is actually by Augustine. (When Erasmus came to include the Speculum “Quis ignorat” in his edition of Augustine’s works, printed by Froben in 1528, he even called the authenticity of that work into question.)

The Speculum “Audi Israhel”—preserved in Rome, Biblioteca della Basilica di Santa Croce in Gerusalemme, ms 58 (codex Sessorianus, eighth or ninth century); Paris, BnF ms lat. 6400G (codex Floriacensis, fourth to seventh century, also known as ms h, Beuron 55, fragmentary); Avranches ms 87 (ninth century); Paris BnF ms lat. 15082 (twelfth century); Paris, BnF ms. lat. 2977A (eleventh or twelfth century); Paris, BnF ms nouv. acq. 256 (twelfth century); and in abridged versions in Paris, BnF ms lat. 4/42 (codex Aniciensis), formerly in Le Puy-en-Velay; and Paris, BnF ms lat. 9380 (ninth century), 338-346—contains a selection of scriptural passages organised under a number of doctrinal heads.

There are a number of reasons to doubt that this work was compiled by Augustine: it uses a different biblical text from that found in Augustine’s other works; it quotes from the ps.-Pauline Epistle to the Laodiceans, which Augustine rejected; and it employs the Western order of the Gospels (Matthew, John, Luke, Mark), which Augustine likewise avoided.


Further, see Weihrich, 1881; Weihrich’s introduction to CSEL 12; and Sanday, 1890, who question some of Wiseman’s claims. In any case, the text of the comma cited in the Speculum “Audi Israhel”, CSEL 12:325-326, reads: Spiritus est qui testimonium reddit, quia spiritus est ueritas. Item illic: Tres sunt qui testimonium dicunt in cælo, pater, uerbum et spiritus, et hii tres unum sunt. The transmission is not consistent in the mss; Avranches 87, Paris 15082 and Paris 2977A read: “Spiritus est qui dicit in cælo pater uerbum et spiritus et hii tres unum sunt.”

=======


Errors
Floriacensis - however this is in Sanday!
“Sometimes found together in the same manuscripts”
Weihrich year

Omitted
Houghton gives AD 400 composition
2 spots with verse, different texts

=======
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Delisle article may add to scholarship
============================

Léopold Victor Delisle - (1826-1910)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Léopold_Victor_Delisle

History & Literature Of Christ (2013)
by Pierre De Labriolle
https://books.google.com/books?id=rVHYAQAAQBAJ&pg=PT692
1655706259602.png


Studia Biblica: Essays in Biblical Archæology and Criticism and Kindred Subjects, Volume 1 (1885)
https://books.google.com/books?id=pStVAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA130
1655706510673.png


"Le Plus Ancien MS. du Miroir de St. Augustin"

Second Catalogue of the Library of the Peabody Institute of the City of Baltimore, Including the Additions Made Since 1882, Part 1 (1896)
https://books.google.com/books?id=dklFAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA216
1655706718591.png

"Le Plus Ancien MS. du Miroir de St. Augustin"
10 pp. (Biblioth. Ecole des Charles v. 45, 1884 p. 478 )
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
BVDB
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/bibleversiondiscussionboard/speculum-or-latin-ms-m-t3934.html

Metzger in the 3rd and 4th edition of the "Text of the NT" dates Speculum as 8th or 9th century (p. 75 and 104-105 respectively). The UBS4 and the NA27 date Speculum to the 5th century. Metzger's "Early Versions of the NT" does the same. Does the actual date of the manuscript in our possession date to the 8th or 9th century while the (original) work itself dates to the 5th century?

On page 295 of "Early Versions of the NT" Dr. Metzger states that Latin "m" is no longer considered OL but rather a mixed text (that is OL and vg). Would this refer to the original work or the manuscript itself?

========================================

Scrivener, Plain Introduction, 4th ed., 1:48-49, makes it clear that the "Speculum" was "ascribed to St. Augustine" (thus apparently the 5th century claim), but the earliest manuscript of this document seems to be "the Sessorian MS. (no. 58) of the eighth or ninth century".

Aland and Aland, Text of the New Testament, p. 219 point out that it was "ascribed to Augustine for reasons unknown," which is why it today is considered as from Ps-Augustine.

========================================


Thanks for this info. I was using the 3rd edition which is lacking this information. Scrivener's book is still very valuable. This information (the date of the existing manuscript for the Speculum) is not readily available.

Steven Avery

Scrivener actually gives more salient information p. 258, helpful albeit still rudimentary.

m. This letter indicates the readings extracted by Mai (Spicilegium Romanum, 1843, Tom. ix. pp. 61—86) from a "Speculum" [vi or vu] which, has been ascribed to Augustine, and is unique for containing extracts from the whole 1ST. T. except St Mark, 3 John, Hebrews, and Philemon. It is in the Monastery of Santa Croce, or Bibliotheca Sessoriana (No. 58) at Rome. "Wiseman drew attention to it in his celebrated " Two Letters," 1835 (see p. 255), because it contains 1 John v. 7 in two different places. Both he and Mai furnish facsimiles. This "Speculum" (published in full by Mai, Patrum Nova Collectio, Yol. i. pt. 2, 1852) consists of extracts from both Testaments, arranged in chapters under various heads or topics.

What Scrivener discusses on p. 255 is a section where Wiseman demonstrates, among other things, that the Sessoriana Speculum quotes the African Bible text as used by Augustine. Augustine also used an Italian text and was generally adverse to the Vulgate of Jerome.

The Aland comment "reasons unknown" is humorous in its ignorance and/or deception. The type of hokum you expect from Aland or Metzger or Wallace.

To start you can simply read the Nicholas Wiseman section. And you can note the comment by Possidius, the biographer of Augustine, that he was working on such a work at the time of his death, as mentioned by Sanday, who also mentions that the Preface is quoted in the 6th century by Eugippius.

Since Aland did not do any homework, or decided to hide the history, you can also look at the placement of the Speculum de Scriptura in Augustine's writings by scholars who specialize on Augustine, like Mary T. Clark's work in 2005 .

========================================

Maybe it is claimed there were Vulgate readings, but that may not be correct. I will keep my eyes open. Augustine would likely not use Vulgate vs. Old Latin, in general.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Grantley
The Speculum “Audi Israhel”—preserved in ... Paris, BnF ms lat. 6400G (codex Floriacensis, fourth to seventh century, also known as ms h, Beuron 55, fragmentary);

This might be an error. Research in progress.

Confirmed as error from Grantley.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Metzger - Early Versions
The Vulgate is a revision according to a Greek text which was predominantly Alexandrian, but which nevertheless presented also several readings of the Koine and the Western texts. The Latin Vorlage stood close to the D-type with a mixture from the later stage of the I-type (pseudo-Augustinian Speculum, MS. 86, and especially MS. 61) .2 p. 359


1655893774464.png


1655893827124.png

p. 299
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Speculum “Quis ignorat” - Augustine
Munich, BSB clm 14513 (ninth century);
Chartres ms 33 (ninth century);
Sankt Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek ms 137 (tenth century);
Vatican, BAV cod. Pal. 198 (tenth or eleventh century);
Paris, BnF ms. lat. 2473 (thirteenth century)



The Speculum “Audi Israhel”—preserved in
Rome, Biblioteca della Basilica di Santa Croce in Gerusalemme, ms 58 (codex Sessorianus, eighth or ninth century);
Avranches ms 87 (ninth century);
Paris BnF ms lat. 15082 (twelfth century);
Paris, BnF ms. lat. 2977A (eleventh or twelfth century);
Paris, BnF ms nouv. acq. 256 (twelfth century);
and in abridged versions in
Paris, BnF ms lat. 4/42 (codex Aniciensis), formerly in Le Puy-en-Velay; and
Paris, BnF ms lat. 9380 (ninth century), 338-346—



2 Libraries
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Grantley corrects 3 Speculum errors being corrected in future pub -

Codex Floracensis is not a Speculum ms.
There are not any mss. with both Speculums
Weihrich date (minor)

============================

Steven
You have Codex Floriacensis Beuron 55 as a Speculum ms. (Audi Israhel,) .. this might be an error ? (You may know about the question.)

Grantley
Yes, I had already picked up my error about the Speculum in my revision of the early material up to Erasmus, which has had to take a back seat due to my other commitments. Weihrich cites this manuscript under the siglum F, which he calls "Codicis Floriacensis fragmenta Ashburnhamensia". I had originally assumed that this was the Codex Floriacensis (Beuron 55), but in fact it is a different manuscript.

You'll have to wait for my fothcoming book for more details.

BTW, the reference Weihrich 1881 is also incorrect. It should be Weihrich 1883, i.e. Weihrich, Franz. “Das Speculum des h. Augustinus und seine handschriftliche Ueberlieferung.” Sitzungsberichte der philosophisch-historischen Classe der kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften 103 (1883): 33–64.

My statement that the two Specula are sometimes found in the same manuscript is also incorrect, and has already been corrected in the revised book.
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
For Study

it uses a different biblical text from that found in Augustine’s other works;
it quotes from the ps.-Pauline Epistle to the Laodiceans, which Augustine rejected;
and it employs the Western order of the Gospels (Matthew, John, Luke, Mark), which Augustine likewise avoided.

Further, see Weihrich, 1881; Weihrich’s introduction to CSEL 12; and Sanday, 1890, who question some of Wiseman’s claims.

You'll have to wait for my fothcoming book for more details. BTW,
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
NOTE:

questions about
Sanday
Delisle
why Benedictine editors rejected, was it just the Augustine aspect?

=====================

Augustine

Possidius of Calama (5th century)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possidius
http://books.google.com/books?id=BlesEHKanZYC


Possidius of Calama: A Study of the North African Episcopate in the Age of Augustine (2008)
Erika Hermanowicz
https://books.google.com/books?id=BlesEHKanZYC&pg=PA45

Possidius mentions a few Augustinian texts by name: Confessions, Retractationes (called the De recensione librorum in the Vita), and the Speculum.117

117 See Bastiaensen’s commentary, 429. Augustine himself and the manuscript history exclusively use the term Retractationes. Possidius’ title probably comes from the prologue of the Retractationes, where Augustine uses the verb recenseo. It is interesting that here Augustine states that he wants to review his books with a ‘judicial severity’ (‘cum quadam iudiciaria severitate recenseam’).

https://books.google.com/books?id=BlesEHKanZYC&pg=PA61
Possidius acknowledges that Augustine’s Retractationes were, in part, for the correcting of theological inconsistencies\ stemming from the days when he was not as familiar with ecclesiastical rule, but he clearly attributes their reaction as a function of his approaching end.178 Possidius mutes Augustine’s rigorous self-correction in favor of a Retractationes, paired with his Speculum, that predominantly function as tools enabling the learned and unlearned to navigate collections of texts. Both books anticipate Augustine’s absence. They are the gifts from a man determined to ensure his powers of edification after he dies.179

178 v. Aug. 28.1: ‘et quaecumque in his recognovit aliter quam sese habet ecclesiastica regula a se fuisse dictata et scripta, cum adhuc ecclesiasticum usum minus sciret minusque sapuisset, a semetipso et reprehensa et correcta sunt’ (‘And in those works which he had dictated or written while he was as yet not so well acquainted with ecclesiastical usage and had less understanding, whatsoever he found not agreeing with the ecclesiastical rule, this himself he censured and corrected’).
Notice that the corrections are reserved for his early career. Late clarifications are necessitated by his fellow clerics distributing his books before Augustine had a chance to revise them (v. Aug. 28.2).

179 Vessey, ‘Opus imperfectum’, 264-7.


https://epdf.pub/possidius-of-calam...-african-episcopate-in-the-age-of-august.html

Sanday - biographer of Augustine, was working on such a work at the time of his death, also in Wiseman
http://www8.georgetown.edu/departments/medieval/labyrinth/e-center/aug-archive.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2013082.../medieval/labyrinth/e-center/aug-archive.html

The Speculum, as we learn from Possidius, was written for the unlearned, and hence he made use in it of the African recension, which universally contained the verse and Dr. Wiseman adds, that were the verse “found in Augustine's works, the circumstance would require explanation,” which he considers might have been found in the propriety he might occasionally find of “adopting a less favourite text, to suit the feelings or utility of the people.”—Vol. III. p. 363. - William Wright

Eugippius.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugippius
Sanday ... Preface quoted in the 6th century by Eugippius.

Carolingian Renaissance paper
https://www.academia.edu/72727279/8...orium_and_Carolingian_Renaissance_750_900_AD_

Corbie 13174
Prudent Maran
https://books.google.com/books?id=mClAAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA202
and much more.
Erasmus and Froben

1655 Jerome Vignier edition (see William Wright)

Benedictine editors rejection (see William Wright, maybe Wiseman)

Josephi Mariae Thomasii - (1649-1713)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giuseppe_Maria_Tomasi
http://books.google.com/books?id=0cw_AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA174

Wiseman
Two Letters (1835)
http://www.archive.org/stream/a615589000wiseuoft
Essays (1853)
http://books.google.com/books?id=wfApAQAAIAAJ

William Wright
https://books.google.com/books?id=1J4XAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA632

Porter
https://books.google.com/books?id=eMHORkWbDJUC&pg=PA509

Daniel McCarthy
http://books.google.com/books?id=SuxS-z-6SIUC&pg=PA517
p. 517-524

Irish Quarterly Review
p. 154 156 158
http://books.google.com/books?id=a4YAAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA156

Irish Ecclesiastical Record (1867)
http://archive.org/stream/irishecclesiasti04dubluoft#page/199/mode/1up

Tregelles
http://books.google.com/books?id=HYFJAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA240

Scrivener (1861)
http://books.google.com/books?id=6pOl5kos2O0C&pg=PA258

Orme - Abbot or Tregelles (1866)
http://books.google.com/books?id=A05CAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA188
1872
http://books.google.com/books?id=Yyw-AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA188

Tischendorf

Karl Wilhelm August Reifferschedi (1835-1887)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_Reifferscheid

Weihrich 1883, i.e. Weihrich, Franz. “Das Speculum des h. Augustinus und seine handschriftliche Ueberlieferung.” Sitzungsberichte der philosophisch-historischen Classe der kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften 103 (1883): 33–64.
http://books.google.com/books?id=JLHNuQEACAAJ
two treatises of this name attributed to Augustine, both of which are included in Weihrich’s edition in CSEL 12: the Speculum “Quis ignorat” and the Speculum “Audi Israhel”. - Grantley
Weihrich’s introduction to CSEL 12
1656947867280.png

https://books.google.com/books?id=8ArgAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA429

Zeigler

Reusch

Abbot
http://books.google.com/books?id=Yyw-AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA188
more

Westcott (1881)
http://www.bible-researcher.com/vulgate5.html#note59

Lightfoot
FIND - NOT GOOD URL
http://books.google.com/books?id=R5mAkbaqO5oC&pg=PA2

Dublin Review (1881)
http://books.google.com/books?id=jxgYAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA142
http://books.google.com/books?id=jxgYAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA433

Gregory
http://books.google.com/books?id=guU2AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA410
http://books.google.com/books?id=guU2AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA249

Léopold Victor Delisle - (1826-1910)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Léopold_Victor_Delisle
"Le Plus Ancien MS. du Miroir de St. Augustin" -(1884)
https://books.google.com/books?id=pStVAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA130
https://books.google.com/books?id=dklFAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA216

George Schepss (1886)
http://books.google.com/books?id=woAsAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA14

Gloag (1887)
http://www.archive.org/stream/cu31924029294794#page/n311/mode/2up


The Classical Review - Volume 1 (1887) - this has Eugippius info and some Speculum
Sanday
https://books.google.com/books?id=UjYrAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA143

Sanday review of Augustine works
Review: The Vienna Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum. IV (1890)
https://www.jstor.org/stable/692384

JSTOR
Classical Review - (1890)
Sanday
https://www.jstor.org/stable/692384#metadata_info_tab_contents
p. 414-417
Zenodo above from cjab
https://zenodo.org/record/1688902#.Yu1wNJYpCxN

Berger - 1893 - 13174
http://books.google.com/books?id=DzcI7wS3dMIC&pg=PA64
http://books.google.com/books?id=DzcI7wS3dMIC&pg=PA103
https://books.google.com/books?id=HYQXAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA104#v=onepage&q&f=false

Savi (1893)
https://books.google.com/books?id=tHhIAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA310

Lamy (1897)
http://books.google.com/books?id=EAPOAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA469

Johannes Belsheim (1829-1909)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Belsheim
1899
http://books.google.com/books?id=1T4AAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA3
Fragments
http://books.google.com/books?id=1T4AAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA49

William Sanday
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Sanday
Appendixes in Lloyd's Greek NT
https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q="novum+testamentum+cum+Parallelis+"+:Sanday

Sanday book review
http://books.google.com/books?id=YN8WAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA466
http://www.jstor.org/pss/692384

Brooke - 1912 (Skinner)
http://books.google.com/books?id=_ekYAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA159
http://books.google.com/books?id=_ekYAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA198
http://books.google.com/books?id=_ekYAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA212

Pohle (1912)
http://books.google.com/books?id=iN4OAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA35

ICCS (1912)
https://books.google.com/books?id=_ekYAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA159
1656951095112.png



Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)
http://books.google.com/books?id=-aSQNo8kNqIC&pg=PA720

James Hardy Ropes (1916)
http://books.google.com/books?id=yshrlWqqh4MC&pg=PA83

Fickermann and Carl Erdman
http://books.google.com/books?id=cRAbAAAAIAAJ&dq=Fickermann+Augustine&pgis=1

Note: Corbie 13174

Kenyon (1949)
http://www.katapi.org.uk/GBibleText/Ch4.html

Fischer

Aland

Bruce Metzger - Early Versions
https://idoc.pub/documents/bruce-m-...-transmission-and-limitationspdf-qn85mr1xpkn1

BACKGROUNDS OF THE TITLE SPECULUM IN MEDIAEVAL LITERATURE By SISTER RITAMARY BRADLEY. C.H.M.
http://www.jstor.org/pss/2853870

Walter Thiele (1959)
http://www.findingaugustine.org/Record/70432

A. Vaccan
"les traces de la vetus latina dans le Speculum de Saint Augustin" Studia Patristica - p. 228-233 Vaccari Augustine's text of John: patristic ..(1961)
http://books.google.com/books?id=0MAJc7wzTlsC&pg=PA378

Cambridge History of the Bible (1975)
http://books.google.com/books?id=QnG2067meU0C&pg=PA373

Henry Baten (1990)
http://books.google.com/books?id=lF03DYPxpqwC&pg=PA187
- Speculum Latin like City of God Augustine - "deus itaque summus et verus cum verbo suo - Henricus Bate. Speculum divinorum et quorundam naturalium: Parts XI-XII: On .

Keith Edward Johnson (2007)
http://dukespace.lib.duke.edu/dspac...d=B420E9E3911E76C1132516503591DCBA?sequence=1

Possidius of Calama: A Study of the North African Episcopate in the Age of Augustine (2008)
Erika Hermanowicz
https://books.google.com/books?id=BlesEHKanZYC&pg=PA45
Erika T. Hermanowicz

Latin Manuscripts of the Speculum (medieval, different Spec)
https://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpres...&chunk.id=d0e549&toc.id=d0e549&brand=ucpress/

Mary Twibill Clark (1913-2014)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_T._Clark
Augustine
http://books.google.com/books?id=1J3yD_H-ZOEC&pg=PR18

History & Literature Of Christ (2013)
Pierre De Labriolle
https://books.google.com/books?id=rVHYAQAAQBAJ&pg=PT692
1656947654573.png


Paul van Geest (2018)
https://research.tilburguniversity.edu/en/persons/paul-van-geest
https://research.tilburguniversity....augustines-speculum-and-an-unknown-reason-for
The authenticity of Augustine's Speculum and an unknown reason for its composition — Tilburg University Research Portal

Hugh Houghton

Grantley McDonald - two books and comments

Robin Whalen (2018)
https://books.google.com/books?id=oxc-DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA126

BVDB

CARM

Witness of God is Greater

PBF

Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Speculum
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Nobilius, Bianchini, and Sabbatier
[Wiseman] The work [St. Augustine's Speculum] which we are considering consists of upwards of one hundred heads, including the most important points of Christian belief and practice. Upon each of these subjects all the texts of the Old and New Testaments are given, without a single remark or illustration. In the main, the work is nearly the same as was published under the title of St. Augustine's Speculum, by Jerome Vignier." But it differs in one most important particular, that the text used in our manuscript is not the version of St. Jerome in the Old, nor his correction in the New [PAGE 14] Testament, but the old Vulgate found in the quotations of the Fathers, and collected in the great works of Nobilius, Bianchini, and Sabbatier. It in fact supplies many lacunae in the latter invaluable work, and is therefore a precious addition to our stores of sacred criticism. Indeed, the active and intelligent librarian of Santa Croce is preparing the entire work for publication, chiefly with a view to amending and improving our text of the ancient Vulgate. “not to judge it from the specimen given by Bianchini,” whose facsimiles, from not being traced, will be often found incorrect."
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
In the paper on the Carolingian Renaissance, you can see that the Speculum is attributed to Augustine as a proof of the veracity of the correct text. 8 - The Comma Calmly Considered - Correctorium & Carolingian Renaissance (750-900 AD)

The "either/or" scenario is a product of bias against the presence of the verse in the one document. That is the whole ball of wax on the issue

Yes, funny "Metzger clones" ha ha good one.

“To start you can simply read the Nicholas Wiseman section. And you can note the comment by Possidius, the biographer of Augustine, that he was working on such a work at the time of his death, as mentioned by Sanday, who also mentions that the Preface is quoted in the 6th century by Eugippius.”That might be from you.

If the “m” Speculum matches Eugippius that is solid early evidence.
But Sanday is not so easy to find, nor Delisle.

oh, got the context. Thanks. I will take a look.
ok, here is where I got that from.

Mary T. Clark Clark, Mary T. Augustine. Continuum, 2005.
www.worldcat.org/oclc/1016184331
https://books.google.com/books?id=1J3yD_H-ZOEC&pg=PR18

en Scrivener actually gives more salient information p. 258, helpful albeit still rudimentary. m. This letter indicates the readings extracted by Mai (Spicilegium Romanum, 1843, Tom. ix. pp. 61—86) from a " Speculum" [vi or vu] which, has been ascribed to Augustine, and is unique for containing extracts from the whole 1ST. T. except St Mark, 3 John, Hebrews, and Philemon. It is in the Monastery of Santa Croce, or Bibliotheca Sessoriana (No. 58) at Rome.

"Wiseman drew attention to it in his celebrated " Two Letters," 1835 (see p. 255), because it contains 1 John v. 7 in two different places. Both he and Mai furnish facsimiles. This "Speculum" (published in full by Mai, Patrum Nova Collectio, Yol. i. pt. 2, 1852) consists of extracts from both Testaments, arranged in chapters under various heads or topics. What Scrivener discusses on p. 255 is a section where Wiseman demonstrates, among other things, that the Sessoriana Speculum quotes the African Bible text as used by Augustine. Augustine also used an Italian text and was generally adverse to the Vulgate of Jerome. The Aland comment "reasons unknown" is humorous in its ignorance and/or deception. The type of hokum you expect from Aland or Metzger or Wallace. To start you can simply read the Nicholas Wiseman section. And you can note the comment by Possidius, the biographer of Augustine, that he was working on such a work at the time of his death, as mentioned by Sanday, who also mentions that the Preface is quoted in the 6th century by Eugippius. Since Aland did not do any homework, or decided to hide the history, you can also look at the placement of the Speculum de Scriptura in Augustine's writings by scholars who specialize on Augustine, like Mary T. Clark's work in 2005 .
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Possidius informs us that the Speculum had a preface prefixed to it. I will give his words at length, as I may have occasion to refer to them more than once. MS 13174 (9th Century) Samuel Berger, Histoire de la Vulgate pendant les premiers siècles du moyen âge, 1893 pp. 103–105 >>books.google.com/books?id=HYQXAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA103#v=onepage&q&f=false Eugippius (circa 460 – circa 535, Castellum Lucullanum) was a disciple and the biographer of Saint Severinus of Noricum. After the latter's death in 482, he took the remains to Naples and founded a monastery on the site of a 1st-century Roman villa, the Castellum Lucullanum (on the site of the later Castel dell'Ovo). Its scriptorium was famous, and Cassiodorus praised Eugippius' Biblical scholarship, although he did not approve of Eugippius' neglect of secular learning. In 511 Eugippius wrote to Paschasius and asked his venerated and dear friend, who had great literary skill, to write a biography of St. Severinus from the accounts of the saint which he (Eugippius) had put together in crude and inartistic form. Paschasius, however, replied that the acts and miracles of the saint could not be described better than he had done by Eugippius.[1] While at Naples, Eugippius compiled a 1000-page anthology of the works of St. Augustine and produced other scholarly works of high quality. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugippius Thesis PhD on Eugippius works and manuscripts http://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/654/1/uk_bl_ethos_491749.pdf Quique prodesse omnibus volens, et valentibus multa librorum legere et non valentibus, ex utroque divino Testamento, Vetere et Novo, praemissa praefatione, praecepta divina seu vetita ad vitae regulam pertinentia excerpsit, atque ex his unum codicem fecit; ut qui vellet legeret, et in eo vel quam obediens Deo inobediensve esset agnosceret, et hoc opus voluit Speculum appellari. (Vita Aug ubi sup. p. 277) Caput XXVIII - Quae proxime ante mortem ab Augustino edita. Rectrationum libri. Barbarorum irruptio. Hipponis obsidio. Migne Latina, PL 32.58 Essays on Various subjects By WISEMAN https://books.google.com/books?id=jmJ_9IKZlmIC&pg=PA16#v=onepage&q&f=false (PL 32 0057) CAPUT XXVIII. - Quae proxime ante mortem ab Augustino edita. Retractationum libri. Barbarorum irruptio. Hipponis obsidio. CHAPTER XXVIII. The books published by Augustine just before his death Shortly before the time of his death he revised the books which he had dictated and edited, whether those which he had dictated in the time immediately following his conversion when he was still a layman, or while he was a presbyter or a bishop. And in those works which he had dictated or written while he was as yet not so well acquainted with ecclesiastical usage and had less understanding, whatsoever he found not agreeing with the ecclesiastical rule, this he himself censured and corrected. Thus he wrote two volumes whose title is On the Revision of Books. And he sometimes complained that certain books had been carried off by some of his brethren before his careful revision, although he revised them later. Some of his books, however, he left uncompleted at the time of his death. Furthermore, in his desire to be of help to all, both those who could read many books and those who could not, he made excerpts from both the sacred Testaments, the Old and the New, of the divine commandments and prohibitions relating to the conduct of life, and with the addition of a preface, made one volume of them. He who wishes may read it and learn therefrom how obedient or disobedient he is to God. This work he desired to have called "The Mirror" (Latin: Speculum). (<www.tertullian.org/fathers/possidius_life_of_augustine_02_text.htm>) CAPUT XXVIII. - Quae proxime ante mortem ab Augustino edita. Retractationum libri. Barbarorum irruptio. Hipponis obsidio. Ante proximum vero diem obitus sui a se dictatos et editos recensuit libros, sive eos quos primo tempore conversionis suae adhuc laicus, sive quos presbyter, sive quos episcopus dictaverat: et quaecumque in his recognovit aliter quam sese habet ecclesiastica regula a se fuisse dictata et scripta, cum adhuc ecclesiasticum usum minus sciret, minusque sapuisset, a semetipso et reprehensa et correcta sunt. Unde etiam duo conscripsit volumina, quorum est titulus, De recensione librorum . Praereptos etiam sibi quosdam libros ante diligentiorem emendationem a nonnullis fratribus conquerebatur, licet eos postmodum emendasset. Imperfecta etiam quaedam suorum librorum praeventus morte dereliquit. Quique prodesse omnibus volens, et valentibus multa librorum legere, et non valentibus, ex utroque divino Testamento, Vetere et Novo, praemissa praefatione praecepta divina seu vetita ad vitae regulam pertinentia excerpsit, atque ex his unum codicem fecit; ut qui vellet legeret, atque in eo vel quam obediens Deo inobediensve esset, agnosceret: et hoc opus voluit Speculum appellari. (0058)


Here is the Sanday Quote. Sanday, W. (1890). The Vienna Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum. IV [Review of S. Augustini Opera; Priscilliani quae supersunt]. The Classical Review, 4(9), 414–417. http://www.jstor.org/stable/692384

W. Sanday, The Vienna Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum. IV, The Classical Review, Vol. 4, No. 9 (Nov., 1890), pp. 414-417

You can see the first page of this paper, and in it is what I was referring to.

Neat
I will get this in PBF first

Now, the question is which Speculum was Possidius referring to. Of course the critics reject the Comma Speculum. So, Sanday does as well. But the Comma Speculum is missing the first few pages (has no introduction paragraphs) because the manuscript is damaged.
So, who is to say which is which? Or that Augustine did or did not write an introduction to this Comma Speculum...
The Critics assume that the non-comma speculum is the one that Possidius was referring to because of the usual bias.

But Wiseman points out that there is no reason to assume this nor is there any reason to assume that this comma speculum was written by someone else posing as Augustine.

Anyway, the whole thing is so complicated and full of nit picking, I just left it out of the paper. It seems like the critics have picked a fight where there was none before simply to find a reason to exclude the work as Augustine's. No need to write a defense concerning the lack of introduction in the comma speculum. The History speaks much louder and clearer that it was always accepted as Augustine's work.


I wonder if there is much overlap between the two. The idea that two people wrote very similar Speculums is not an easy theory.


  • And this acceptance and attribute also lends weight to Wiseman's statements concerning Augustine's knowledge of the comma, Augustine's allusions to the comma, and finally, Augustines objection to it's use in Jerome's Vulgate as the 9 - The Comma Calmly Considered - The Letter of Egilbert of Trier (circa 1085 AD) indicates.
  • Sanday tries to answer the question of overlap and likeness between the two.
  • Yes, Grantley has it as Sanday, W. Rev. of CSEL 12. The Classical Review 4 (1890): 414-417.

  • I would like to find Weihrich’s introduction to CSEL 12 Might be in English

  • 2:05 PM

    Also Delisle may defend Augustine authorship, but no one has that paper yet.
  • Might need someone at the Library of Congress!

  • That Weihrich CSEL is online, it is Latin

  • So, concerning the comma-speculum, I would say that we have historical support for the work being attributed to Augustine. The critics have only their current flavor-of-the-month judgements against it. No other fathers saw the issues as significant in determining the authorship of the comma-speculum. And I would even propose that no one saw the problem with Augustine being the author of both works.



  • Sanday does admit that the works are written differently (i.e., in different styles to serve different ends for the church refutation of heresies). Strange that critics would admit this difference, then deem the difference as a reason to exclude the work as Augustine's. It is just another ad hoc argument based on the presence of the comma in the one work. Wiseman calls them out on this.
  • Steven Avery Spencer sent the following messages at 4:21 PM
    View Steven Avery’s


    I think the Benedictine monks were the first to raise an issue.
  • View Steven Av

  • What is amazing about the comma-speculum is that Wiseman's suggestion happened many decades before the Letter of Egilbert of Trier (circa 1085 AD) was discovered. But the letter affirmed Wiseman's suggestion about the "comma-speculum version". Augustine's reluctance about the verse(s) would be a very good reason why he composed two different versions.

  • In any case, all the evidence supports our view of the case. The critics have only a supposition based on the presence of the introduction in the complete manuscript. The comma-speculum is missing those pages, so the critics case is weak and desperate: special pleading.
  • Steven Avery Spencer sent the following message at 6:30 PM

    Neat
  • Mike Ferrando sent the following messages at 6:45 PM



    And the critics try to create a facade with the "we don't agree with so-in-so's opinion of the letter". But the "opinion" has nothing to do with the question or the evidence. The Letter is real and just another "unexpected" "should have never happened" "will never happen" piece of evidence refuting the pathetic weak critics theory that never had any evidence to support it in the first place.
  • This just keeps happening. But all we get is more "confirmation bias" from these people who live in denial.



  • That is why writing these papers and revealing this evidence is so important. The facade is evaporating and soon the only thing left will be their credentials and continued insistence that they are have an opinion and their cabal has rendered judgement, blah blah blah.
    • 😞




    Just look at the discoveries of the 19th century (my paper). The trend is always going against these critics. The evidence is always fightingg against their fantastical theories. How many times does it need to happen?
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
RGA

Further, see Weihrich, 1881; Weihrich’s introduction to CSEL 12; and Sanday, 1890, who question some of Wiseman’s claims.

Sanday, W. Rev. of CSEL 12. The Classical Review 4 (1890): 414-417.

=============================================================

1656957250837.png

1656957280725.png
 
Last edited:
Top