the Glossa Ordinaria on the heavenly witnesses and on the Vulgate Prologue

Steven Avery

Administrator
Pure Bible Forum

Petrus Comestor sermon - Glossa Ordinaria include Comestor and William Briton
https://purebibleforum.com/index.ph...ria-include-comestor-and-william-briton.2036/

the Glossa Ordinaria on the heavenly witnesses and on the Vulgate Prologue
https://purebibleforum.com/index.ph...y-witnesses-and-on-the-vulgate-prologue.1912/

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

Witness of God has material related to Bede

Then Bede's commentary is transcribed from Rusch Strasbourg: Rusch, (1400-1481 AD)
Then Bede's commentary is also transcribed from: MS Balliol 177 (12th century)
And there is an extended comment about this MSS as being an authentic comment of Bede's.
I also note if Jerome's Prologue is in the MSS for each one.

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

This is also direct in Burgess
https://books.google.com/books?id=2fgvAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA25

1623299175081.png


https://books.google.com/books?id=2fgvAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA25
The Quarterly Reviewer convinced Bishop Burgess, that the preface to the Glossa Ordinaria, which directs the Latin to be corrected by the Greek, was not written by Walafrid Strabus in the 9th century, but certainly after the twelfth, and that the commentary on the Prologue to the Canonical Epistles, which the learned prelate had also quoted as the work of Strabus, was written by one Brito, a monk of the 14th century.

The Quarterly Review (1825)
http://books.google.com/books?id=dVqwFG_y_4kC&pg=PA73

1629623506902.png
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
2 Glossa ordinaria, 1603, 1414; the interlinear gloss actually says: “Vnus Deus de eadem re testantes.” On Erasmus and the Glossa ordinaria, see de Jonge, 1975.

-----. “Erasmus und die Glossa ordinaria zum Neuen Testament.” Nederlands Archief voor Kerkgeschiedenis 56 (1975): 51-77.

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

VI-10 Ordinis sexti tomus decimus: Annotationes in Novum Testamentum (Pars Sexta)
M.L. van Poll-van de Lisdonk
https://books.google.com/books?id=rt8zDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA545

1629622628142.png


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

Searching for the Glossa Ordinaria spots.

On the heavenly witnesses
On the Vulgate Prologue

Brito may be good to include

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

Turretin
https://archive.org/details/francisciturret00unkngoog/page/n327/mode/2up?q=+glossa+interlinearis
http://confessionalbibliology.com/w...9/Disputatio-theological-Francis-Turretin.pdf
https://docplayer.gr/68686957-Dispu...genevensi-i-cum-hoec-sit-fides-catholica.html

1629623817091.png


ut habet glossa interlinearis,
Hi tres unum sunt, id est unus Deus de eadem re testantes. Nec si addit utrosque testes unum dici eodem sensu, hoc intelligit absolute et simpliciter; sed relate ad institutum Joannis quod est harmoniam testium coelestium et terrenorum de Messia exhibito ostendere.

==============================
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
The Witness of God is Greater

The Glossa Ordinaria (1100-1199 AD)

• The Glossa Ordinaria, which is Latin for "Ordinary [i.e. in a standard form] Gloss", is a collection of biblical commentaries in the form of glosses. The glosses are drawn mostly from the Church Fathers, but the text was arranged by scholars during the twelfth century. The Gloss is called "ordinary" to distinguish it from other gloss commentaries. In origin, it is not a single coherent work, but a collection of independent commentaries which were revised over time. The Glossa ordinaria was a standard reference work into the Early Modern period (circa 1500-1800), although it was supplemented by the Postills attributed to Hugh of St Cher and the commentaries of Nicholas of Lyra. The main impetus for the composition of the gloss came from the school of Anselm of Laon (d. 1117) and his brother Ralph. Another scholar associated with Auxerre, Gilbert the Universal (d. 1134), is sometimes credited with the Gloss on much of the Old Testament, although only the gloss on Lamentations has been firmly attributed to him. The Gloss achieved a more-or-less standard form at Paris in the second half of the twelfth century.
(Glossa Ordinaria. Wikipedia. <en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossa_Ordinaria>)

Anselm of Laon (Latin: Anselmus; d. 1117), properly Ansel (Ansellus), was a French theologian and founder of a school of scholars who helped to pioneer biblical hermeneutics. Born of very humble parents at Laon before the middle of the 11th century, he is said to have studied under Saint Anselm at Bec,[1] though this is almost certainly incorrect. Other potential teachers of Anselm have been identified, including Bruno of Cologne and Manegold of Lautenbach. By around 1080, he had moved back to his place of birth and was teaching at the cathedral school of Laon, with his brother Ralph. Around 1109, he became dean and chancellor of the cathedral, and in 1115 he was one of Laon's two archdeacons. His school for theology and exegesis rapidly became the most well known in Europe. Anselm's greatest work, an interlinear and marginal gloss on the 'Scriptures', the Glossa ordinaria, now attributed to him and his followers,[2] was one of the great intellectual achievements of the Middle Ages. It has been frequently reprinted.[1] The significance of the gloss, which was most likely assembled after Anselm's death by his students, such as Gilbert de la Porrée, and based on Anselm's teaching, is that it marked a new way of learning — it represented the birth of efforts to present discrete patristic and earlier medieval interpretations of individual verses of Scripture in a readily accessible, easily referenced way. This theme was subsequently adopted and extended by the likes of Hugh of St. Victor, Peter Lombard and later Thomas Aquinas, who gave us 'handbooks' for what we would now call theology.
(Anselm of Laon. Wikipedia. <en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anselm_of_Laon>)

[Sarah VDP] For this volume, I have followed the Rusch version as the standard text, though with some exceptions (i.e., that being when the older manuscripts provide the better and more likely reading). But this volume is a critical edition, and multiple sources have been consulted and compared. In the appendix all the variant readings are given that are found in Rusch, (Bibliothèque nationale de France, Département des manuscrits) Latin 338 and Latin 588, and Migne. The two manuscripts of Latin 338 and 588 are the oldest witnesses that are used for this volume (the Latin 588 is a 12th century manuscript; the Latin 338 is a 13th century manuscript). Rusch is a 15th century version, and the Migne version being a 19th century text that most scholars have considered to be extremely inferior to the other versions.
(Litteral & Sarah Van der Pas, The Glossa Ordinaria: Epistles of St. John, 2014, p. 11)

HITS:
• [1 John 5:6] "This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth." This is, etc. This is because faith alone and confession of the divinity is not sufficient for salvation and for conquering the world, he also adds about his humanity: Spirit. That is, the human soul which has gone out in the Passion; the water and blood, which flowed from his sides. That would not be possible if he did not have the true nature of flesh. But also before the Passion, his sweat like drops of blood demonstrate the truth of his humanity (flesh). This fact, that the water and blood flows vivaciously from his sides against nature even after his death, was testifying that the body of the Lord after his death is better than living, and his death gives us life. The fact that his sweat flowed as blood in the earth signifies that his blood cleanses the Church throughout the whole world. (Bede Expo. On 1 John)

• [1 John 5:7] "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. For there be three." Through this it is apparent that Jesus is truth, true God and true man. And concerning both we have a sure testimony: concerning his divinity we have testimony through the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; concerning his humanity, through the Spirit, water, and blood. The Father gave testimony of his divinity when he said, "This is my beloved Son" (Matt. 3:17). The Son himself gave testimony when he was transfigured on the mount, and showed the power of divinity and the hope of eternal happiness. The Holy Spirit gave testimony when he rested above Jesus at his baptism in the form of a dove, or when he filled the hearts of believers for the calling of the name of Christ.

[1 John 5:8] "And there are three which give testimony in earth: the Spirit, water, and blood, and these three be one."

• [1 John 5:9] "If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son." If we receive the testimony of men. Great is the testimony of the man David which he provides of the Son of God, "The Lord said to my Lord: Sit at my right hand" (Psalms, 109:1). And he even represents the Son speaking, "The Lord has said to me: Thou are my son" (Psalms, 2:7). Greater is the testimony of the forerunner, who said, "I have baptized you with water; but he shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit" (Mark 1:8). But greater is the testimony of the Father who visibly sent into him the Spirit which he was always full of, as if he said, "If you believe the men foretelling the advent, believe the Father testifying that Christ has come". (Bede Expo. On 1 John)

• Sarah Van Der Pas, The Glossa Ordinaria: Epistles of St. John, 2014, p. 49-51.


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

Then comes some mss. Not sure if where they place this.

Latin 588 Bibliothèque nationale de France, Département des manuscrits, Latin 588 (1101-1200)

HIT:
• This is he that came by water and blood, Jesus Christ: not by water only but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit which testifieth that Christ is the truth. And there are Three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one. And there are three that give testimony on earth: the spirit and the water and the blood. If we receive the testimony… (1 John 5:6-9)

• hic est venit par aqua & sanguinem
Ihs Xrs. non in aqua solum
sed in aqua & sanguine. Et Spiritus
est quia testificatur quoim Xrs. et
veritas. Quia tres sunt qui (f. 127r [Image 279])
testimonium dant in celo: pater,
verbum, & spiritus sanctus. Et hii tres unum
sunt. Et tres sunt qui testimonium
dant in terra: spiritus, aqua, & sanguin.
Si testimonium… (f. 127v [Image 280])
<gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b8442914x/f279.image>
Latin 338 Bibliothèque nationale de France, Département des manuscrits, Latin 338 (1201-1300)

HIT:
• This is he that came
by water and blood, Jesus Christ:
not by water only but by water and
blood. And it is the Spirit which testifieth
that Christ is the truth. And there are Three who
give testimony in heaven, the Father,
the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one.

And there are three that give testimony
on earth: the spirit and the water and the blood. If
we receive the testimony of men… (1 John 5:6-9)

• hic est qui venit
per aquam & sanguinem ihs xrs.
Non in aqua solum sed aqua & sanguine.
Et spiritus est qui testificat
quoniam xrs est veritas. Qui tres sunt qui
testimonium dant in celo: pater,
verbum & spiritus sanctus. Et hi tres unum sunt.
Et tres sunt qui testimonium dant
in terra: Spirit, aqua, & sanguin. Si
testimonium hominum... (f. 50r [Image 103])
<gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b8426055f/f103.image.r=glossa%20ordinaria%20.langEN>
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Returning to the Glossa Ordinaria

" the commentary on the Prologue to the Canonical Epistles was written, not by Walafrid Strabo, but by Frater Brito in the fourteenth century"

"The Gloss achieved a more-or-less standard form at Paris in the second half of the twelfth century."

"[Sarah VDP] For this volume, I have followed the Rusch version as the standard text ... Rusch is a 15th century version"

So theoretically we should be able to find the section on fhe Vulgate Prologue. Why? It was bounced around in the debate a lot. Granted that was based on the unlikely idea that it was many centuries earlier, Walafrid Strabo, but it still would be nice to find the section!
:)
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
BCEME - p. 47
Gómez suggested that the fact that the Glossa ordinaria argued that the unity of the heavenly witnesses was one of testimony rather than essence was ample evidence that an orthodox writer could interpret this passage in such a way as might ostensibly be considered favourable to a heretical understanding. Samunde came to a similar conclusion. By contrast, Ciruelo argued that it was wrong to deny that the comma refers to anything but the unity of the divine essence, whatever the Glossa ordinaria might say.
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
RGA
Glossa ordinaria. In Biblia sacra cum glossa ordinaria iam ante quidem à Strabo Fulgensi collecta. 6 vols. Venice: Giunta, 1603.

Many more, all interesting, some the same as BCEME.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
BCEME - Servetus, Erasmus and the Glossa Ordinaria

In his first book, On the errors of the Trinity (1531), Servet discussed the Johannine comma in conjunction with Jn 10:30 and Jn 14:10. Servet noted that the neuter unum in Jn 10:30 refers to a unanimity and concord of wills, not a numerical singularity. He extended this conclusion to the comma, where unum likewise relates ‘not to the nature of those three things, but to the faithfulness and the unity of their testimony’ (constat ibi agi non de natura illarum trium rerum, sed de fide et unitate testimonii). Carlos Gilly has shown that Servet’s wording here and the authorities he summoned in support (Cyprian and the Glossa ordinaria) are borrowed from Erasmus’ Annotationes.13

13 Servet 1531, 22v–24v. Servet notes in the margin of 23v that Erasmus, like Origen (Contra Celsum VIII.12, PG 11:1534) also interprets unum in Jn 17:22 as a unity of wills (Erasmus etiam in annotationibus ita exponit). This is the only explicit mention of Erasmus in the entire book. See Gilly 1985, 277–318, esp. 277–279; Gilly 2005, 326–327; Servet 2008, 220–227.

Gilly, Carlos.
Spanien und der Basler Buchdruck bis 1600. Basel: Helbing & Lichtenhahn, 1985.
‘Erasmo, la Reforma radical y los heterodoxos radicales españoles.’ In Les lletres hispàniques als segles XVI, XVII i XVIII. Ed. Tomàs

Martínez Romero. Castelló de la Plana: Publicacions de la Universitat Jaume I, 2005: 225–376

BCEME p. 97
Erasmus had shown that the comma is absent from the best codices, ‘but had been added by some enemy of the Arians’. He had also pointed out that the Glossa ordinaria interprets the unity of the witnesses as one of testimony rather than one of essence.106

106 Biandrata and Dávid 1567, L2r–M1v. Further, see Bietenholz 2008, 42–46.

p. 318 - Erasmus Annotationes

1662807291720.png


13 Glossa ordinaria 1603, 1414; the interlinear gloss actually says: ‘Vnus Deus de eadem re testantes.’ On Erasmus and the Glossa ordinaria, see de Jonge 1975.

De Jonge, Henk Jan.
‘Erasmus und die Glossa ordinaria zum Neuen Testament.’ Nederlands Archief voor Kerkgeschiedenis 56 (1975): 51–77.

BCEME bibliography
Glossa ordinaria. In Biblia sacra cum glossa ordinaria iam ante quidem à Strabo Fulgensi collecta. 6 vols. Venice: Giunta, 1603.

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

To Search

Erasmus etiam in annotationibus ita exponit

Vnus Deus de eadem re testantes.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
RGA - Annotationes

But imagine that the reading is not in
dispute, since what is said about the testimony of the water, blood and Spirit
being one refers not to an identity of nature, but to an agreement in testimony,
do we really think that the Arians would be so stupid as not to apply the same
interpretation to the Father, the Word and the Spirit here, especially since
orthodox writers give this same interpretation to a similar passage in the Gospels,
since Augustine does not reject this interpretation in his diatribe Against the
Arian Maximinus,
and since an interlinear fragment of the Glossa ordinaria
interprets this very place in this way? “[The three] are one,” says the Glossa, “that
is: testifying about the same thing.”2

What is the exact reference here for Augustine .. is it a similar passage like John 10:30?
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
Grantley blunder

BCEME p. 74

In his first book, On the errors of the Trinity (1531), Servet discussed the Johannine comma in conjunction with Jn 10:30 and Jn 14:10. Servet noted that the neuter unum in Jn 10:30 refers to a unanimity and concord of wills, not a numerical singularity. He extended this conclusion to the comma, where unum likewise relates ‘not to the nature of those three things, but to the faithfulness and the unity of their testimony’ (constat ibi agi non de natura illarum trium rerum, sed de fide et unitate testimonii). Carlos Gilly has shown that Servet’s wording here and the authorities he summoned in support (Cyprian and the Glossa ordinaria) are borrowed from Erasmus’ Annotationes.13

13 Servet 1531, 22v–24v. Servet notes in the margin of 23v that Erasmus, like Origen (Contra Celsum VIII.12, PG 11:1534) also interprets unum in Jn 17:22 as a unity of wills (Erasmus etiam in annotationibus ita exponit). This is the only explicit mention of Erasmus in the entire book. See Gilly 1985, 277–318, esp. 277–279; Gilly 2005, 326–327; Servet 2008, 220–227.

The Erasmus Annotationes does not mention Cyprian, an incredible omission.

Erasmo, la reforma radical y los heterodoxos radicales españoles (2005)
Carlos Gilly
https://www.academia.edu/34598615/Erasmo_la_reforma_radical_y_los_heterodoxos_radicales_españoles

P. 312-313
1662821960014.png


1662822014454.png

1662822117655.png

1662822160141.png
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Gilly 1985, 277–318, esp. 277–279

Academia.edu Many
https://unibas.academia.edu/CGilly

Spanien und der Basler Buchdruck VII Die Haeretiker 1 Servet Lyncurius Gribaldi
https://www.academia.edu/34302957/S...II_Die_Haeretiker_1_Servet_Lyncurius_Gribaldi
Starts p. 274
1662824249098.png


Note:
Johannes Campanus 1532
Salmeron maybe
1662824430603.png










This next is Erasmus

Spanien und der Basler Buchdruck 1985 IV Die Humanisten I Erasmus
https://www.academia.edu/34302954/Spanien_und_der_Basler_Buchdruck_1985_IV_Die_Humanisten_I_Erasmus
Chapter 4 p. 134=172

Spanien und der Basler Buchdruck 1985 X Verzeichnis spanischer Bücher.pdf
https://www.academia.edu/34302960/S...ruck_1985_X_Verzeichnis_spanischer_Bücher_pdf

Spanien und der Basler Buchdruck 1985 X Verzeichnis spanischer Bücher.pdf
https://www.academia.edu/34302950/Spanien_und_der_Basler_Buchdruck_1985_1_Einleitung_pdf
 
Last edited:
Top