Psalm 151? Where is it?

[Dave_Noonan]

This is the very assumption that I would question: that the canon is best thought of as simply the “list of books of the Bible.” It seems to me that in a Christian context at least the basic definition may rather be the list of inspired texts which the Church has approved for use in the Liturgy.

See my post above. I think though that part of the problem with this definition (which this thread exposes) is that a list may not be specific enough, especially in terms of the Psalms. It’s only by looking at an actual Bible that you can see what someone means by “The Psalms” or “1 Samuel” or “Jeremiah” unless the list is incredibly specific.

I’m also curious about your perspective on the “use in the liturgy” part of the definition. Do you think this refers to potential use or actual use? Here I’m thinking about books like Judith that never come up in the Lectionary and are not used as Mass. How do Catholics think about a text like that in terms of canon? Why have it if you’re not going to use it? Or is the idea that the church could use it one day but has simply chosen not to up until now?

In the converse, there are various texts used, say, in the LOTH that are not biblical (for example from the works of the saints). Just confused how this definition would work functionally.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

See my post above. I think though that part of the problem with this definition (which this thread exposes) is that a list may not be specific enough, especially in terms of the Psalms. It’s only by looking at an actual Bible that you can see what someone means by “The Psalms” or “1 Samuel” or “Jeremiah” unless the list is incredibly specific.

I’m also curious about your perspective on the “use in the liturgy” part of the definition. Do you think this refers to potential use or actual use? Here I’m thinking about books like Judith that never come up in the Lectionary and are not used as Mass. How do Catholics think about a text like that in terms of canon? Why have it if you’re not going to use it? Or is the idea that the church could use it one day but has simply chosen not to up until now?

In the converse, there are various texts used, say, in the LOTH that are not biblical (for example from the works of the saints). Just confused how this definition would work functionally.

I believe the Church as addressed the issue of the individual parts of books.

Anyway, the book of Judith is used in the Liturgy of the Hours. Together, the mass and the LOTH go through just about the whole of the canonical Scriptures. I don’t think any entire book is neglected. Still, you may be right to suggest it’s material with the potential to be used in the Liturgy as Scripture, even if an individual verse never actually makes it into any liturgical celebration during a certain period of history.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

I believe the Church as addressed the issue of the individual parts of books.

So would that also be the case with Psalms then? (Back to the OP?)

 

[patrick457]

It’s my impression that some Vulgate Bibles included Psalm 151 and others did not, but most newer/printed ones have followed the tradition of not including it. I defer to those with more knowledge on the subject to me, though.

I’m not entirely sure but I think it has to do with the different ‘local’ versions of the Vulgate. Out of all the versions the Italian-Northumbrian text (represented by Codex Amiatinus and Codex Fuldensis) is currently considered the best, and hence has formed the basis for most recent Vulgate revisions. The Spanish text (with Codex Cavensis and Codex Toletanus as representatives) is as old as the Italian, but is less reputable. St. Jerome was reputed to have supervised the work of the first Spanish scribes to copy his translation, but by the time of our earliest manuscripts the type had developed many peculiarities such as the retention of many Old Latin readings (which shows us just how strong the hold of these Latin versions Jerome’s translation had to surpass) and some textual quirks (cf. the infamous Johannine Comma). The Irish text, meanwhile, is marked by beautiful manuscripts which represent the best of Insular art (like the Book of Kells) but is marred by textual peculiarities such as conflations and inversions of word order. Some of the manuscripts are thought to have been corrected from the Greek - although the number of Greek scholars in the Celtic church must have been few indeed.

Out of all the local versions, the French text is usually considered the worst. Unlike Spain and Ireland on the periphery of the crumbling Western Empire, both long closed to outside influence, France was open to the importation of new texts and subsequently became the land of mixed texts without any local character of its own. Gaul was ‘invaded’ by the Irish tradition from the north and the Spanish version from the south: not surprisingly, the French text managed to combine the worst of both worlds.

Anyways, Psalm 151 seems to be one of those Vetus Latina translations that have crept into the Vulgate text. I noticed that the Utrecht Psalter has it (along with other prayers and canticles as an appendix): from what I gather this psalter was originally written near Reims, as its style is similar to that of the Ebbo Gospels.

 

[Mintaka]

Actually, Irish monk scholars were pretty interested in Greek. There are a surprising number of surviving Bible manuscripts with dual Latin/Greek texts, one line above another (along with Irish glosses squeezed inbetween, here and there).

What you’re forgetting is that, since Ireland isn’t far from Spain as the seabird flies, there was a ton of Mediterranean trade going to Ireland (whenever the Muslim naval forces didn’t interfere). And the Irish were great travelers, so they did get Greek mss brought back to them.

The Irish and Welsh churches got a lot of Mediterranean refugees along the years, which is part of why those languages have a lot more Greek loanwords in their basic vocabulary items (especially in church-related stuff) than English does.

Even secular Irish poets had to memorize the Greek alphabet (along with many others) in their first year of poet school, so it was a matter of fairly general interest. After the medieval/Renaissance period really got going, even village schoolmasters taught Greek as well as Latin; and when schools were forbidden by the English, the hedge schools still taught Latin and Greek. Probably the 21st century is the century with the fewest Greek-reading Irish in it.

 

[patrick457]

Actually, Irish monk scholars were pretty interested in Greek. There are a surprising number of surviving Bible manuscripts with dual Latin/Greek texts, one line above another (along with Irish glosses squeezed inbetween, here and there).

What you’re forgetting is that, since Ireland isn’t far from Spain as the seabird flies, there was a ton of Mediterranean trade going to Ireland (whenever the Muslim naval forces didn’t interfere). And the Irish were great travelers, so they did get Greek mss brought back to them.

The Irish and Welsh churches got a lot of Mediterranean refugees along the years, which is part of why those languages have a lot more Greek loanwords in their basic vocabulary items (especially in church-related stuff) than English does.

Even secular Irish poets had to memorize the Greek alphabet (along with many others) in their first year of poet school, so it was a matter of fairly general interest. After the medieval/Renaissance period really got going, even village schoolmasters taught Greek as well as Latin; and when schools were forbidden by the English, the hedge schools still taught Latin and Greek. Probably the 21st century is the century with the fewest Greek-reading Irish in it.

On the contrary, recent opinion is that the Irish monks, while they did seem to have been highly interested in Greek, did not really possess a deep knowledge of the language beyond a modest lexical and grammatical understanding of it, and those that had a professional grasp of Greek would not have been that many (Johannes Scotus Eriugena, who did know Greek, is the center of uncertainty: did he pick up the language from the Carolingian court in the Continent or from the monasteries in his native Ireland?) It isn’t disputed though that the Irish (and English) were relatively still better off when compared to a good deal of Western Christendom.