Musculus on John 4:24 (Latin; my spelling right?)

Discussion in 'Languages' started by NaphtaliPress, Aug 5, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. NaphtaliPress

    NaphtaliPress Administrator Staff Member

    George Gillespie cites Musculus on John 4:24 in his EPC; not a direct quotation but it looked interesting so I ran it down (the commentary is online; see here). What is the rule on updating Latin spelling? u to v, i to j? Anyone see any misspellings? Anyone question this is the right spot out of Muscuslus (looks to me to be correct but I don't know much Latin)

    Gillespie writes: "Musculus reprehends bishops for departing from the apostolical and most ancient simplicity, and for adding ceremonies unto ceremonies in a worldly splendor and spectability, whereas the worship of God ought to be pure and simple.1

    1.Musculus on John 4:24. Hanc simplicitatem in ecclesia Christi non tulerunt episcopi, sed cerimonias cerimonijs ita addiderunt, & mundano splendore ornarunt acspectabiles reddiderunt, ut, sicuti hodiernus dies declarat, & Gentes & Judaeos externi cultus superstitione Christiani uicerimus [Vide August. Episto. 119], quod malum tum potissimum inualuit, quando abiecto uerbo die mundana sapientia administrari coepit religio Christi. Quotus hodie quisque est, qui spiritali cultu contentus, non affectet externas aliquas cerimonias, quibus deum colat? [FONT=&quot]Commentariorvm In Evangelistam Ioannem Heptas prima (Basel: [Johann Herwagen,] 1545) 129. [/FONT]
    View attachment 1877
     
  2. DTK

    DTK Puritan Board Junior

    Chris,

    Not an answer to your question, but I take it you found the Augustine reference that Musculus cites?

    DTK
     
  3. NaphtaliPress

    NaphtaliPress Administrator Staff Member

    Actually, I haven't looked!:eek:
     
  4. MW

    MW Puritanboard Amanuensis

    Chris,

    The Musculus excerpt makes the specific points which Gillespie cites.

    For standardisation, it is legitimate to replace "j" with "i," and "u" with "v" when it is not functioning as a vowel. E.g., "cerimonijs" to "cerimoniis," and "inualuit" to "invaluit."
     
  5. DTK

    DTK Puritan Board Junior

    Chris, I'll get on it for you if you desire it.
     
  6. NaphtaliPress

    NaphtaliPress Administrator Staff Member

    If you would that would be great; many thanks. I thought Gillespie had referenced 119 already but it was ep. 118 in another place.
     
  7. DTK

    DTK Puritan Board Junior

    Chris,

    The numbering of Augustine's epistles, as employed by Musculus, must be different from the numbering in Migne PL 33. Epistola CXIX (119) in the Augustine corpus of Migne is actually a letter written by one named Consentius to Augustine. If I am correct in speculating that Consentius is the same person to whom Augustine writes in Epistle 205, then he was a monk living in the year 420 among the sect of Priscilianists, who were numerous in Spain. Constentius was probably living, however, at one of the monasteries at Lerins or St. Victor, some monasteries on islands off the south coast of France.

    At any rate, he is soliciting Augustine's advice/counsel regarding images of God, thus I don't think Epistola CXIX in Migne's numbering is the correct reference. I think you have some chart handy that cross-references three different numberings of Augustine epistles. If you do, you can let me know here, or email me with another clue as to the numbering if you still desire to have me run it down.

    DTK
     
  8. NaphtaliPress

    NaphtaliPress Administrator Staff Member

    David,
    I was right that I thought I'd seen 119 before. Letter 119 is 55 in Migne. Epistola LV. Ad Inquistiones Januarii. It would help to have the Musculus translated I guess but I think it may be to the same place (Letter 55, chapter xix). There is no indication Musuculus is directly quoting; so far I've not matched any words.
     
  9. DTK

    DTK Puritan Board Junior

    Thanks Chris. I don't think it's really Epistola LV that Musculus has in mind either. I suppose it's either Letter 75.13-14 to Jerome (which can be read in the Schaff or Eerdmans edition), where Augustine seeks to prove to him that Jewish ceremonies are hurtful rather than harmless; or Musculus might have the Letter below in mind...

    Or it might even be another letter, but this is what I uncovered thus far; and I don't know if, given the fact that Musculus seems to be referencing rather than citing, it would be profitable to you for me to pursue it further.

    Blessings,
    DTK
     
  10. NaphtaliPress

    NaphtaliPress Administrator Staff Member

    Difficult to know. I had thought about the Jerome as well before I recalled the alias numbering. Musculus may have the reference wrong, but this gets me to the point of doing critical analysis of the text of Musculus which was only referenced by Gillespie in summation rather than quoting (Gillespie does not note the Augustine in his summation). It would make one complicated footnote! I may simply cite the Musculus, note the alias number, and leave it at that. Thanks for the above but I think given the complexities of a secondary or even tertiary notation, we'll call the hunt off.
    I will say,and continue to say, it is amazing what is available online.
     
  11. DTK

    DTK Puritan Board Junior

    Good enough, Chris...case closed, i.e. for now :)
     
  12. NaphtaliPress

    NaphtaliPress Administrator Staff Member

    Thanks; yes, always reserve the right to revisit an issue! :)
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page