Non aufert liberum arbitrium

[COPLAND 3]

Can someone check this translation? It concerns 1 John 3:3. Thank you!

Sanctificat se. BEDA. Non aufert liberum arbitrium, dum dicit, etc., usque ad dicentes Deo: Adjutor meus es tu, ne derelinquas me Psal. 26..

Sanctifies himself. BEDE. This does not take away free will, when he says, etc., As far as saying to God, 'You are my helper, forsake me not.' Ps. 26.

 

[Pacifica]

Ok. It could as well be "he does not take away".

 

[Matthaeus]

Agreed.

 

[Abbatiſſæ Scriptor]

Perhaps 'aufert' here mean ſomething more like 'negate', in which caſe I doubt if it matter all that much whether it be read as a perſonal verb or an imperſonal.

 

[Matthaeus]

On a side note, Abbatissæ Scriptor: is "if it matter" and "whether it be read" a use of the English coniunctivus? I am asking because I rarely ever hear people speak like that, only books. Is this an archaism? I've come across this before...

 

[Abbatiſſæ Scriptor]

I do tend to uſe the ſubjunctive not only to expreſs deſires and conditions contrary to fact, but also for ordinary conditional ſtatements, and conjoin'd clauses of ſeeming and ſupposition, yes. It is ſimply a matter of chosen style.

 

[Matthaeus]

Ok, just seeking confirmation. Thanks. But why is it not used in everday speech? Not in the States, at any rate.

 

[Abbatiſſæ Scriptor]

Ok, just seeking confirmation. Thanks. But why is it not used in everday speech? Not in the States, at any rate.

Sunt pauci in his foris qui gaudeant ob istud apologiam agere (uel ſaltem temptare) sed ego non unus eorum ſum. Nolo ſcire.

 

[limetrees]

This might well be another quote from Bede [?], which would make the "ID" of verse 4 possibly 'ibid' rather than 'Isidore'. It seems like it's telling you what part of Bede to look at.​

Do ye know what text it's referring to?​

Sanctificat se. BEDA. Non aufert liberum arbitrium, dum dicit, etc., usque ad dicentes Deo: Adjutor meus es tu, ne derelinquas me Psal. 26..​

​

Sanctifies himself. BEDE. "This [text, or "he" i.e. John] does not take away free will, when he says, etc.", as far as "those saying to God, 'You are my helper, forsake me not.' Ps. 26."​

 

[COPLAND 3]

That is a possibility about ID, I will check that out.

 

[limetrees]

Sanctificat se.
in the King James is "purifieth himself".
Have ye picked an English translation ye want to use as the standard one or yer translations?

Look also at the translation of Ps 26 (and of 119 in another passage earlier)

 

[Pacifica]

Have ye picked an English translation ye want to use as the standard one or yer translations?

Copland has chosen the Douay-Rheims.

I have already googled yesterday to see if I could find the source of the quotation but I didn't find.

 

[Abbatiſſæ Scriptor]

Indeed, I would uſe either A.V. or Douay-Rheims myſelf.

 

[limetrees]

I guess Douay-Rheims is better since it's the Vulgate it's working from.

But a question: the text being translated: is it just from this online version?
I'd be afraid of banging my head against a transcription errors alot of the time (though I guess it's (somewhat!) like what paleographers come up against all the time)

 

[Abbatiſſæ Scriptor]

I would at leaſt uſe one that purported to be Clementine. I had a two volume Stuttgart edition once, and it was full of alternative readings and ſcholarly B.S., as if the Clementine were not the Textus Receptus for the Vulgate.

 

[COPLAND 3]

limetrees,
That version of the Gloss that you asked about, Migne version, is one of the versions that I am using, and it (1-3 John) has been translated so far in its entirety for this project, but I am also using another version which is Rusch, and that one is a famiscle in which I am transcribing. The book that will be published will be having both versions translated. The Rusch version has some extra glosses and some variant readings compared to Migne.

Very little study of the Glossa Ordinaria has been done, and so far I have discovered some things about the Gloss on 1-3 John that will actually be new perspectives and information that will be brought to light for Glossa Ordinaria studies. I am also consulting manuscripts and fragments of the Glossa on the epistles of John and comparing them to Migne and Rusch, which has been shedding light on some issues that go against some assumptions that have been made by a few scholars that have been critical against Migne version of the Gloss. An example is that some scholars have assumed that Migne carelessly transcribed the Gloss and omitted glosses, which they assumed that only by comparing Migne to Rusch, but I have found that Migne appears to have transcribed from a manuscript of the Gloss that had the readings that he provided, whereas the Rusch famiscle appears to have interpolations and may be a recension. The oldest Glossa manuscripts that I have found so far are much more concise that Rusch and even Migne. Here is a link to the Rusch famiscle http://archive.thulb.uni-jena.de/ufb/receive/ufb_cbu_00000227?jumpback=true&maximized=true&page=/Mon-typ-2-00011_540.tif

Sorry to get on a roll about the textual critical stuff, but I just wanted to give you an idea of some differences between the versions and what I am working towards that might clarify some of the strange things that I post.

 

[Abbatiſſæ Scriptor]

Much thanks for a valuable link.

 

[COPLAND 3]

As for the translation, once I standardize the translation of the whole project in the final editing, I will probably use the original Douay-Rheims of 1582-1609 with the archaic language smoothed out. I have already got that available in my files because I did the New Testament original Douay Rheims in a previous project (which I published the Gospels with original footnotes of the DR). The Douay Rheims version online are all from Challoner's revision, but for the sake of keeping it as close to the Vulgate version used by the Glossa Ordinaria I will pull up that file I have and make those adjustments when the time comes.

Here is another link to an ancient manuscript from around 1200AD of the Gloss on the canonical epistles, in which I am consulting for textual critical purposes, http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b8426055f/f86.zoom.r=glossa ordinaria .langEN

I don't know why but textual criticism and ancient manuscripts have always thrilled me! I've studied a lot of ancient Bible manuscripts in the past, and to now focus on the Gloss manuscripts I have been really enjoying it. Probably sounds like I need to get a life huh!

Abbatissæ Scriptor

I had that version once myself. I actually gave it to a friend who is a Latin teacher where I work.

 

[Abbatiſſæ Scriptor]

Here is another link to an ancient manuscript from around 1200AD of the Gloss on the canonical epistles, in which I am consulting for textual critical purposes, http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b8426055f/f86.zoom.r=glossa ordinaria .langEN

I don't know why but textual criticism and ancient manuscripts have always thrilled me! I've studied a lot of ancient Bible manuscripts in the past, and to now focus on the Gloss manuscripts I have been really enjoying it. Probably sounds like I need to get a life huh!

Really nice Carolingian book hand. Eaſier to read than many later manuſcripts. My own intereſt is primarily in kalligraphy. Thanks again for another great link.

 

[COPLAND 3]

I was surprised it was in that good shape too. It must have been well preserved in libraries. I have started a webpage on my website for the Gloss manuscripts and versions, though it is only the beginning, I have lots more to do adding more. https://sites.google.com/site/aquinasstudybible/home/glossa-ordinaria