Codex Fuldensis Gospel

  • Thread starter Thread starter Voco_proTatiano
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Nobody has objected because nobody has any interest in what you are talking about.
Fortunately the Holy Spirit guided the Catholic Church in determining what is part of scared scripture or not. That authority was not given to you.
 
thistle said:
Nobody has objected because nobody has any interest in what you are talking about.
Fortunately the Holy Spirit guided the Catholic Church in determining what is part of scared scripture or not. That authority was not given to you.
Click to expand...
The scripture is not scared, and neither am I.
Actually, the DEEP silence of the Catholic church on this document, which was fundamental in restoring Christianity to Europe after the Roman debacle inflicted by the Emperor Honorius, indicates that the church may be scared of this document.
Pity, it is a fine, and well assembled document, which at one time had the blessing of the church, and to the best of my knowledge, that blessing has never been revoked.
Gospel Harmonies have an ancient tradition, starting with Matthew and Luke, which are both, and Luke himself so confesses in his introduction, expansions upon pre-existing works, some of their own, and some borrowed.
As for your arrogance in believing that the Church only is the vessel of the Holy Spirit, that is plain nonsense. The Holy Spirit blows as pleases, and has no bounds.
 
Voco_proTatiano said:
The scripture is not scared, and neither am I.
Actually, the DEEP silence of the Catholic church on this document, which was fundamental in restoring Christianity to Europe after the Roman debacle inflicted by the Emperor Honorius, indicates that the church may be scared of this document.
Pity, it is a fine, and well assembled document, which at one time had the blessing of the church, and to the best of my knowledge, that blessing has never been revoked.
Gospel Harmonies have an ancient tradition, starting with Matthew and Luke, which are both, and Luke himself so confesses in his introduction, expansions upon pre-existing works, some of their own, and some borrowed.
As for your arrogance in believing that the Church only is the vessel of the Holy Spirit, that is plain nonsense. The Holy Spirit blows as pleases, and has no bounds.
Click to expand...
Jesus founded the Catholic Church on Peter and gave the Church authority to bind and loose and the Holy Spirit guided our Church to determine what is sacred scripture and what is not. Even the Protestants recognise that we gave them the Bible through the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The Canon is closed and you certainly have no authority to add another gospel!!
 
Am I the only one on here who has little to no idea of what you are even talking about?

If you’re trying to present a new gospel or something, whatever. It’s not bloody likely that the Church is about to add another book to the Bible.

If you’re trying to show us what a fantastic biblical knowledge you possess, mission accomplished. Frankly, and not to be rude, I don’t really care what evidence you have about the authenticity of this book. Chances are that Catholic biblical scholars have seen and reviewed this. After which, they probably have a great deal of reason why it is not considered Sacred.

Also, we don’t think the Holy Spirit is bottled up for us. Rather, it cannot lead the Church away from truth. Regardless of whether or not you believe that, it’s what the majority of us here believe, so you’re in for a rather lengthy discussion if that’s the case.

If you’re so inclined, write a blog or something with all your information and then link it to us. It’s much easier than clogging up a topic with twenty of your own posts.
 
Dear Friend,
Please,
I am not trying to present a ‘new’ Gospel.
Victor, Bishop of Capua, a little after Jerome compiled his masterpiece, compiled a New Testament ‘Vulgate’ for the purpose of evangelization, to be lightweight, portable, and edited free of as many conflicts as could be achieved without omitting anything vital.
In his work, he used a HARMONIZED Gospel in place of the four individual Gospels we now see. This complied with his aims of clarity and lightness, without omission.
He, himself attributes the harmony to Tatian, though he accepts others thought Ammonius.
He avers that he made no substantive alteration to the text, only to add the Eusebian reference system, and one or two passages which were accepted as canon subsequent to the completion of Tatian’s work.
Thus the Codex Fuldensis, otherwise known as the Victor Codex contains a Harmonized Gospel which dates back to the 2nd century AD, and is based on the Vetus Latina Gospels which St Jerome edited into his masterpiece.
I say again, this is not new.
I say that at one time it was used, and blessed, as a vehicle of evangelism.
I say also, that I can find no record of that blessing being recinded.
THEREFORE, this is still SACRED SCRIPTURE.
That is, IT IS ROMAN CATHOLIC SACRED SCRIPTURE.
All I am presenting is an English translation of the still EXTANT Latin, which can be accessed at Fulda in Germany in Manuscript, or on line from various sources.
My Latin is I confess, imperfect, and I invite criticism thereof.
I say again, I am not pleading for the canonization of something new, only illuminating the presence of an ancient Sacred text, which had it not been for the Martyrdom of St Boniface, might have slipped into oblivion.
Best regards,
Dave.

ps:
If you’re so inclined, write a blog or something with all your information and then link it to us. It’s much easier than clogging up a topic with twenty of your own posts.
Click to expand...
Please look at the link in my signature. It does I think comply with your request.
 
buffalo said:
Tatian
Click to expand...
Dear friend,
Do not imagine that I have not looked at ALL the references I could find on the net for this man of great talent. I have print-outs inches thick concerning him. Yet like the sparrow in the hall, his origins are a mystery, as is his disappearance from the set.
As an asside, Ammonius appears on the set as Tatian leaves, stragely, he too is a man with no history, but has remakably similar talents and interests to those of Tatian. Ammonius, though has a known end. If the assumption is made that these two names represent the same person, then an age at death of abut 120 years is the result. And unlikely longevity, but not impossible.
Epistles of Saint John
Click to expand...
I do not get the relevance of this reference
Victor of Capua
Click to expand...
Yes friend, I too have read this.
However, unlike most of the critics of the Codex Fuldensis Gospel, I have read EVERY word of the Latin, and compared it WORD for WORD with the Latin of the Clementine Vulgate,
AND FOUND DIFFERENCES, which betray a better Latin than that of Jerome, and sometimes a worse.
There are many places where the CF uses the ABLATIVE case where Jerome uses ACCUSATIVE, especially with the preposition ‘in’: ablative implies ‘within’, while accusative implies ‘into’. Curiously, Jerome plants the seed within the ground, while CF plants it into the ground.
If as has been imputed, the text has been vulgateized verse by verse, these minor differences would have been eliminated, for that is the property of ‘Fragment Subtitution’. I know, I did it, and then spent MONTHS undoing it.
What I have found, and concur, is that Matthew and John, as represented in the CF Gospel, agree word for word, if not letter for letter with the Clementine Vulgate for 85% of the text. Clearly that is the text that the critics read. They clearly ignored the remaining 15% which disproves their imputation.
The CF Gospel is NOT dependant on Jerome, but SHARES a COMMON ANCESTOR.
I believe that ancester to be the Cathaginian Vetus Latina.
Best regards,
Dave.
 
Voco_proTatiano said:
Dear friend,
Do not imagine that I have not looked at ALL the references I could find on the net for this man of great talent. I have print-outs inches thick concerning him. Yet like the sparrow in the hall, his origins are a mystery, as is his disappearance from the set.
As an asside, Ammonius appears on the set as Tatian leaves, stragely, he too is a man with no history, but has remakably similar talents and interests to those of Tatian. Ammonius, though has a known end. If the assumption is made that these two names represent the same person, then an age at death of abut 120 years is the result. And unlikely longevity, but not impossible.
I do not get the relevance of this reference
Yes friend, I too have read this.
However, unlike most of the critics of the Codex Fuldensis Gospel, I have read EVERY word of the Latin, and compared it WORD for WORD with the Latin of the Clementine Vulgate,
AND FOUND DIFFERENCES, which betray a better Latin than that of Jerome, and sometimes a worse.
There are many places where the CF uses the ABLATIVE case where Jerome uses ACCUSATIVE, especially with the preposition ‘in’: ablative implies ‘within’, while accusative implies ‘into’. Curiously, Jerome plants the seed within the ground, while CF plants it into the ground.
If as has been imputed, the text has been vulgateized verse by verse, these minor differences would have been eliminated, for that is the property of ‘Fragment Subtitution’. I know, I did it, and then spent MONTHS undoing it.
What I have found, and concur, is that Matthew and John, as represented in the CF Gospel, agree word for word, if not letter for letter with the Clementine Vulgate for 85% of the text. Clearly that is the text that the critics read. They clearly ignored the remaining 15% which disproves their imputation.
The CF Gospel is NOT dependant on Jerome, but SHARES a COMMON ANCESTOR.
I believe that ancester to be the Cathaginian Vetus Latina.
Best regards,
Dave.
Click to expand...
Whatever you might think, there are no forgotten sacred texts.
Anything not in the Bible is not part of sacred scripture. The Holy Spirit was with the Church when it determined which texts would be part of the Bible. GFG was not included. The Canon is closed.
End of story.
If you are researching this for academic purposes fine, but if you are somehow trying to prove this should have been included in the Bible you are simply wasting your time. It wasn’t and never will be.
 
Voco_proTatiano said:
Dear Friend,
Please,
I am not trying to present a ‘new’ Gospel.
Victor, Bishop of Capua, a little after Jerome compiled his masterpiece, compiled a New Testament ‘Vulgate’ for the purpose of evangelization, to be lightweight, portable, and edited free of as many conflicts as could be achieved without omitting anything vital.
In his work, he used a HARMONIZED Gospel in place of the four individual Gospels we now see. This complied with his aims of clarity and lightness, without omission.
He, himself attributes the harmony to Tatian, though he accepts others thought Ammonius.
He avers that he made no substantive alteration to the text, only to add the Eusebian reference system, and one or two passages which were accepted as canon subsequent to the completion of Tatian’s work.
Thus the Codex Fuldensis, otherwise known as the Victor Codex contains a Harmonized Gospel which dates back to the 2nd century AD, and is based on the Vetus Latina Gospels which St Jerome edited into his masterpiece.
I say again, this is not new.
I say that at one time it was used, and blessed, as a vehicle of evangelism.
I say also, that I can find no record of that blessing being recinded.
THEREFORE, this is still SACRED SCRIPTURE.
That is, IT IS ROMAN CATHOLIC SACRED SCRIPTURE.
All I am presenting is an English translation of the still EXTANT Latin, which can be accessed at Fulda in Germany in Manuscript, or on line from various sources.
My Latin is I confess, imperfect, and I invite criticism thereof.
I say again, I am not pleading for the canonization of something new, only illuminating the presence of an ancient Sacred text, which had it not been for the Martyrdom of St Boniface, might have slipped into oblivion.
Best regards,
Dave.

ps:
Please look at the link in my signature. It does I think comply with your request.
Click to expand...
Okay, I think I’ll take a bite. How can you claim this gospel is Roman Catholic when it wasn’t approved as part of the canon? I’d appreciate the evidence you present simply.
 
Voco_proTatiano said:
Dear RR,
If you read the Gospel carefully, it soon becomes clear that Our Lord treated the women especially those in his circle as nearer equals that did Paul: remember Him sending forth the Samaritan woman whom he had spend some time instructing. It is clear also, maybe from necessity, that he commissioned some to ministry. How else could He minister to harems, which of course did then exist, and also to children.
Paul’s attitude was, on the other hand, to present the teaching as friendly to Rome, and as inoffensive to the synogogues. More spin than substance. Nevertheless, there are those who take complexion as color. The commandment of Paul against women, was not to disturb the peace in the Jewish synogogues. Taking it to cover all aspects of teaching is not well founded. Even today, Jews accept that women teach the children.
Paul can I accept, be relied upon to reflect the atmosphere of the time, and his agent, Luke, presents his witness in that vein, but it is the words of Our Lord which interest me, not the words and the subsequent actions of those followers who were not witnesses.
Click to expand...
What did you think of the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury’s recent comments on the ordination of women priests my friend?

With respect to “new” Gospels, have you considered the argument from the point of view of Tradition? I mean Jesus wrote nothing, most scholas agree that the texts we have were written 300 years after Christ’s birth. The Jewish Prophets did not ‘write down’ their teachings, someone else did. Tradition is what is important and the teachings of the Church. If Jesus is God, and his Church is in error, doesn’t that make God wrong?
 
thistle said:
Whatever you might think, there are no forgotten sacred texts.
Anything not in the Bible is not part of sacred scripture. The Holy Spirit was with the Church when it determined which texts would be part of the Bible. GFG was not included. The Canon is closed.
End of story.
If you are researching this for academic purposes fine, but if you are somehow trying to prove this should have been included in the Bible you are simply wasting your time. It wasn’t and never will be.
Click to expand...
Dear Thistle,
Quite simply, and undeniably, resulting from the fine work of Victor of Capua, THERE WAS a New Testament Vulgate, which was designed for evangelization, and accepted as such a vehicle by the authorities of the Catholic church. This New Testament Vulgate was used as a missionary document for over THREE CENTURIES with the blessing of the Church. It could NOT have been used so WIDELY without such blessing. It was the chosen vehicle used by St Boniface, and Pope Gregory, whose agent Boniface was in Germany, COULD NOT HAVE BEEN UNAWARE of its use, when he gave him the name ‘Worker of Goodness’, (Boni Facius).
The above is history, and beyond reasonable denial.
So beween AD 550, and AD 850, the Codex Fuldensis, or Victor codex was regarded as Sacred Text, hence the Harmonized Gospel therein was also so regarded.
These are not my claims, they are PLAIN HISTORY.
How the Catholic church chooses to explain this is her business. Quietly forgetting, as she seems to prefer is not a preferred solution to me.
 
FightingFat said:
What did you think of the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury’s recent comments on the ordination of women priests my friend?
Click to expand...
Dear Friend,
I did not notice any ‘recent’ comments from Canterbury, so perhaps you might enlighten me on thbe gyst of their essence. Personally, I have no problem with women administering the Eucharist. There is an honourable tradition in theatre for men to act the part of women, and V.V… In administering the Eucharist, the priest is playing a part on stage. Acting out a character if you please. Not pretending to be that actual character, even though acting ‘in vicares’. You presumably have no problem with Condy Rice representing GWB. What is the real problem here?
With respect to “new” Gospels, have you considered the argument from the point of view of Tradition? I mean Jesus wrote nothing, most scholas agree that the texts we have were written 300 years after Christ’s birth. The Jewish Prophets did not ‘write down’ their teachings, someone else did. Tradition is what is important and the teachings of the Church. If Jesus is God, and his Church is in error, doesn’t that make God wrong?
Click to expand...
I say again, this is NOT a new Gospel. Using your dating, it stands to be one of the most ancient.
Actually, there is internal evidence that Matthew recorded the actual sayings of Our Lord. He was, being a publican, that is, a civil servant, a qualified scribe, and the analects, regarded by some as the Gospel ‘Q’, has tha appearance of being the collection of scribblings copied from a military wax tablet.
 
Voco_proTatiano said:
Dear Friend,
I did not notice any ‘recent’ comments from Canterbury, so perhaps you might enlighten me on thbe gyst of their essence.
Click to expand...
With pleasure! 🙂 catholicherald.co.uk/news/women%20priests.html

Particularly interesting in the context of the up and coming Vatican visit! I actually started a thread on this in the Catholic News Section of the forum.
Voco_proTatiano said:
Personally, I have no problem with women administering the Eucharist. There is an honourable tradition in theatre for men to act the part of women, and V.V… In administering the Eucharist, the priest is playing a part on stage. Acting out a character if you please. Not pretending to be that actual character, even though acting ‘in vicares’.
Click to expand...
Are you familiar with the theological arguments that Dr. Williams acknowledges in the interview I have linked to above?
Voco_proTatiano said:
You presumably have no problem with Condy Rice representing GWB. What is the real problem here?
Click to expand...
I know you’re not assuming I am American… are you?
Voco_proTatiano said:
I say again, this is NOT a new Gospel. Using your dating, it stands to be one of the most ancient.
Actually, there is internal evidence that Matthew recorded the actual sayings of Our Lord. He was, being a publican, that is, a civil servant, a qualified scribe, and the analects, regarded by some as the Gospel ‘Q’, has tha appearance of being the collection of scribblings copied from a military wax tablet.
Click to expand...
The point I was making still stands however. Do you see how for a Catholic, the Faith in Tradition of the Apostles is as important as what is written in Sacred Scripture?
 
FightingFat said:
With pleasure! 🙂 catholicherald.co.uk/news/women%20priests.html

Particularly interesting in the context of the up and coming Vatican visit! I actually started a thread on this in the Catholic News Section of the forum.

Are you familiar with the theological arguments that Dr. Williams acknowledges in the interview I have linked to above?
Click to expand...
I have to confess that I have seen no convincing argument that can be traced back to the Gospels, and I further confess that I set a hierarchy in authority, with Our Lord’s words in the Gospel being highest, followed by commentary in the Gospel, followed trailing badly, the commentry in the epistles, and the speculation in the appocolypse. Bringing up the rearguard are traditions. But I recall how Our Lord berated those who followed tradition where it conflicted with the Word of God.
I know you’re not assuming I am American… are you?
Click to expand...
No, but this is an American forum.
The point I was making still stands however. Do you see how for a Catholic, the Faith in Tradition of the Apostles is as important as what is written in Sacred Scripture?
Click to expand...
I see that the Catholic Church sees Apostolic tradition as important, but I feel it is an error to give tradition equal weight to the verbatim recorded words of Our Lord.
 
Voco_proTatiano said:
I see that the Catholic Church sees Apostolic tradition as important, but I feel it is an error to give tradition equal weight to the verbatim recorded words of Our Lord.
Click to expand...
Well, I think you may find you get short shrift here then David. 🙂

The Catholic Church agrees with Fundamentalists that God has revealed Himself and his ways to us, showing us what human reason could not work out for itself. But we have a tradition- as have the Jews- of careful and scholarly interpretation of Scripture. The Scriptures were written, under God’s inspiration, within a living community, and are to be pondered within that same community as it contemplates the riches of God’s word.

Catholics have a Tradition that includes the Scriptures, the Sacraments and a kind of instinct for what the Scriptures are about. We bring to the task of contemplation both the intellectual talents God gives us and an understanding of the natural world based on the human sciences. So the Bible has never been read ‘woolenly’ by God’s people.

It could be (and has been) argued that the Gospels are an expression of the faith of that early Christian community and so it is essential that this is considered when one studies them.
 
FightingFat said:
Well, I think you may find you get short shrift here then David. 🙂

The Catholic Church agrees with Fundamentalists that God has revealed Himself and his ways to us, showing us what human reason could not work out for itself. But we have a tradition- as have the Jews- of careful and scholarly interpretation of Scripture. The Scriptures were written, under God’s inspiration, within a living community, and are to be pondered within that same community as it contemplates the riches of God’s word.

Catholics have a Tradition that includes the Scriptures, the Sacraments and a kind of instinct for what the Scriptures are about. We bring to the task of contemplation both the intellectual talents God gives us and an understanding of the natural world based on the human sciences. So the Bible has never been read ‘woolenly’ by God’s people.

It could be (and has been) argued that the Gospels are an expression of the faith of that early Christian community and so it is essential that this is considered when one studies them.
Click to expand...
Well Friend,
I always admitted to heresy, see my profile…
But if you want fundamentals, then
I find nowhere in the NT, or even in the Gospel(s) that a celebrant is needed to administer the Eucharist. Our Lord told us to remember Him when we ate or drank, and especially to eat leavened bread, and drink wine in His memory.
If we choose to have a celebrant, then it is implied that the Paterfamilias, or Father of the house should be that person, in accordance with Jewish custom of that time.
If due to widowhood, or similar circumstances, where there is no man responsible, the Materfamilias would take responsibility. The point remains is that the celebrant is optional in Gospel tradition.
Thus the priest/celebrant is part of traditia nova. It is acceptable provided that traditia nova does not supercede verbum Christi as reported in the Gospel(s). I do recall that traditia nova permits any faithful person to administer the Eucharist in extremis, so principle is here not in question, only preference.
 
I have refrained from re-opening the closed threads, though some may argue contrary. Yes, I did re-open the first closure, but in a very limited form, only printing a minute extract, and leaving just a link to another Catholic site.
The first thread to be closed, was in effect, a mirror of the other site, and can be found on this site at:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=120323
This week’s Gospel as in the Codex Fuldensis Gospel
Week 34, year B to week 2, year C

The second thread to be closed, was little more than a linkage to postings in the other site:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=130142
Read a text from the Victor Codex
Week 4, year C to Easter Sunday, year C, and a special reading for Maunday Thursday.

I have made no effort to hide my identity, I have even gone to the extreme of using the same screen name, except, for this site, I run out of letters, so am obliged to omit a space.

I would like to continue the essence of these closed threads, but in deference to the management, whom I wish to talk to me, I will post on this site only where there is a difference, no matter how small, between the posted reading, as represented by DR, and the equivalent in the Victor Codex.

This week’s Gospel is such a case, so I invite you to look at my posting on the other site:

forum.catholic.org/viewtopic.php?p=597322#597322
 
Dear Friends,
I have of late been unpicking the weave of this harmonized Gospel, to reconstruct the source from which it was compiled. Detractors claim that this is a translation of a Greek or Syriac text, using St Jerome’s gospels, so set it late in time. However, if this were truely the case, there would not be deviations from St. Jerome’s text, yet deviations are common and frequent.
Thus I am convinced that the Latin used is not that of St Jerome, but rather a somewhat different Latin. This may come as a supprise to many who believe that St Jerome was the first to put the Bible into Latin. However, his work was primarily that of a compiler. He used great tranches of the Old Latin Septuagint, and only lightly re-edited the Gospels.
Thus in this Gospel, we have a witness to a very early Latin. I believe it is that of AD 200, commissioned by Victorius Africanus, prior to his death in AD 199.
The readings I link to give a glance at those Gospels, using the DR translation, modified to reflect variations in the source Latin.
This weeks reading is virtually unchanged, the only difference, appart from interweaving of Matthew and Luke beteen the two sections of the reading, is the omission of part of verse 32.
The reading can be seen at:
forum.catholic.org/viewtopic.php?p=598361#598361
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top