Tag: Bible

From my diary

Posted on by Roger Pearse

Cambridge University Library is going to put Codex Bezae online, or so I read in a Daily Telegraph story.   Better still, they’re preparing to put all their books online, and make them freely available.  That’s what we want to hear.

Anne Jarvis, the university Librarian, said that the exciting new plans would open up priceless collections to students worldwide.

She said: “Our library contains evidence of some of the greatest ideas and discoveries over two millennia.

“We want to make it accessible to anyone, anywhere in the world with an internet connection and a thirst for knowledge.

Good for them!  Codex Bezae will be in the first tranche, as — at little pointlessly — will be a Gutenberg bible. 

I hope they attract lots of funding.  This will be the first UK library to take mass free access seriously, and if they do it, will probably guarantee the existence of the library into the digital age.

Dan Wallace and the chaps at CSNTM who photograph manuscripts of the bible were in Cambridge trying to negotiate access.  I suspect their efforts — seemingly fruitless at the time — probably helped change minds and create expectations at CUL.

I’m increasingly impressed with what Anne Jarvis is doing.  I’ve just discovered that even people like me — readers not part of the university — can use the library Wifi network if we get a ‘Lapwing ticket’, valid for a limited period.  It doesn’t look as if they charge, either, which is as it should be.  Lack of access to electronic resources is a real pain for the occasional visitor, and they have addressed it.

I have also received my copy of Croke and Harries, Religious conflict in fourth century Rome, and started to read it.  Lots of excellent texts in translation. 

But it’s much too sunny today to be sat in doors, so I went off to Norwich today instead.

Share

Polychronius, Porphyry and Daniel

Posted on by Roger Pearse

One of the 5th century commentators on scripture was Polychronius, brother of Theodore of Mopsuestia (ca. 430 AD).  He belonged to the Antioch school of biblical interpretation, who took a fairly literal approach to scripture.  His works are lost.   But the interpreters of that school were used extensively by the compilers of catena-commentaries from the 6th century onwards, and Polychronius was among them.  The result is that the Patrologia Graeca contains hundreds of pages of fragments culled from these catenas.

It’s fairly obvious why someone compiling a commentary on scripture from the Fathers would tend to prefer Antioch to Alexandria, literal to allegorical.  An allegorical interpretation might be interesting, but as a comment on a passage is much less useful than someone who is dealing directly with what the passage says.

Polychronius is interesting because he was one of the few Fathers to agree with Porphyry — “the impious Porphyry” as he is universally referred to — on the subject of the date of portions of Daniel.  These he considered were additions made in the Hellenistic period, in the times of Antiochus IV Epiphanes.  The latter monarch led the attack on Judaism and is the subject of the books of Maccabees.  The portions are Bel and the Dragon, Susannah, and the Song of the Three Children.  In Daubney’s Three additions to Daniel I read:

Polychronius, Theodore of Mopsuestia’s brother, refused to comment on this piece because it was not part of the original Daniel, nor in the Syriac, ο  κεταιν  τος  βραϊκος    ντος  Συριακος βιβλίοις.

I’ve had a proposal to translate the fragments on Daniel, amounting to some 50 columns of Migne.  This is quite a bit, and would cost quite a bit too!  I’ve queried whether perhaps we might cherry-pick some of the best bits, solely from a cost-saving point of view.  But it’s not an impossible sum.

The fragments of Daniel were published by Mai in Volume 1 of Scriptorum Veterum Collectio Nova, in part 2, p.105.  They start on p.556 of the Google Books PDF.

Share

A passage in Jerome on Revelation

Posted on by Roger Pearse

A correspondent asked me for a translation of this:

Legimus in Apocalypsi Johannis (quod in istis provinciis non recipitur liber, tamen scire debemus quoniam in occidente omni, et in aliis Faenicis provinciis, et in AEgypto recipitur liber, et ecclesiasticus est: nam et veteres ecclesiastici viri, e quibus est Irenaeus, et Polycarpus, et Dionysius, et alii Romani interpretes, de quibus est et Cyprianus sanctus, recipiunt librum et interpretantur) legimus ergo ibi: eqs.

Which I rendered hastily as:

We read in the Apocalypse of John (which in those provinces is a book not received [as canonical], however we ought to understand that in all the west, and in the other Phoenician provinces, and in Egypt the book is received, and is a book of the church; for also ancient men of the church, among whom Irenaeus and Polycarp and Dionysius [of Alexandria] and other Roman expounders, also including St. Cyprian, receive the book and expound it) we read therefore there: …

Errors?  And … what is “Faenici”?

UPDATE:  Andrew Eastbourne writes:

That text of Jerome is in his (possibly inauthentic) “Tractatus” on Ps. 1, edited by Morin in the Anecdota Maredsolana vol. 3.2 (online at http://books.google.com/books?id=Qh0NAAAAIAAJ — easiest to find if you search in that volume for “legimus in Apocalypsi”) — oh, and Faenicis *is* simply “normal” medieval confusion of spelling for Phoenicis.  (ae / oe / e variation is very frequent in mss.)

I’ve also changed the translation as suggested in the comments!  The quote seems to be on p.5 of the text: just searching for “legimus in Apocalypsi” gives p.314 which is another quote.  The book is inaccessible outside the US, tho.  The reference is: 

Jerome, Commentarioli in Psalmos / Hieronymi, qui deperditi hactenus putabantur ; edidit, commentario critico instruxit, prolegomena et indices adjecit Germanus Morin. 1895, p. 5.

The faenicis has a note in Morin’s apparatus, “Faenicis] paenicis C 1 m: phaenicis A: phoenicis uC 2 m.”  The meaning of these glyphs is not apparent at first glance.

Share

An Armenian catena on the Catholic epistles

Posted on by Roger Pearse

My learned Armenian correspondant Seda Stamboltsyan has been looking in the electronic catalogue of the Matenadaran at Yerevan for us.  She reports at least one Armenian catena in the catalogue, which includes material by Eusebius.

Doing so was not entirely straightforward, as the search tool is somewhat cranky.  You have to get the exact word correct — searching for “euseb” will not bring up “eusebius”.  Since the endings will vary, depending on case, this is a little bit of a pain.  But typing “eusebi” (genitive case) gave 53 results; “eusebios” produced 14.  Among them was this entry:

667662
     Խմբագիր մեկնութիւն է. վկայութիւններ են բերուած հետեւեալ հեղինակներից՝ Կիւեղ Աղեկսանդրացի, Պիմեն, Սեւեռիտոս, Ներսէս, Յովհան Ոսկէբերան, Բարսեղ Կեսարացի, Իսիքիոս Երուսաղէմացի, Դիոնեսիոս Աղէկսանդրացի, Որոգինես, Թէոդորիտոն, Ապողինար Լաոդիկեցի, Եւսեբիոս Կեսարացի, Դիդիմոս, Ամոն, Տիմոթէոս, Աթանաս, Եփրեմ Ասորի։

Translated:

“[Manuscript number] 667662
This is a collective commentary [i.e. catena]. Testimonies are brought from the following authors: Cyril of Alexandria, Pimen, Severitos, Nerses, John Chrysostom, Basil of Caesarea, Hesychios of Jerusalem, Dionysius of Alexandria, Origen, Theodoriton, Apolinarius of Laodicea, Eusebius of Caesarea, Didimus, Amon, Timothy, Athanasius, Ephrem the Syrian.”

Clicking through gave more info.  Folios 1-235 are commentaries on the Catholic epistles, and the authors above are for this.  Plainly this is a catena.  There was also a bit of bibliography: “cf. Vienna N 48 (Tashian, Bibliography, 234-243). Also: PO, t43, N193.”  The shelfmark is Mashtots Matenadaran ms. N 1407. Date: 1596. The place where it was written is not mentioned. Scribe: Priest Pawłos (Paul).

Seda reminds us that not all the manuscripts in the Matenadaran have been catalogued to this level of detail yet.  Four volumes were published, and the electronic catalogue is based on these.  The fifth volume has just been published, but not yet incorporated into the online catalogue.  However there are about 17,000 mss. in the Matenadaran.  Each volume is around 500 mss, so there is a considerable distance still to go.

There is a brief catalogue of all the mss, but it doesn’t go to this level of detail.

PO 43 does indeed contain a publication of an Armenian catena on the Catholic epistles:

Volume 43. La chaîne arménienne sur les Épîtres catholiques. I, La chaîne sur l’Épître de Jacques / Charles Renoux…

So there is a publication with French translation in PO 43/1 (N193), Turnhout 1985; 44/2 (N198), 1987; 44/1-2 (205-206), 1994; 47/2 (N210), 1996.   I queried the manuscript numeral, as that didn’t look like a shelfmark to me.  (It’s probably the electronic catalogue’s database primary key!)

Seda Stamboltsyan tells me that she has been doing  translations from Classical Armenian into modern Armenian, also editing and proofreading texts in Armenian, preparing critical editions of Classical Armenian texts.  I think those of us that are illiterate, at least in Armenian, can be very grateful to her for her efforts!

Share

More Armenian info

Posted on by Roger Pearse

I’m still trying to find out about Armenian catenas and biblical commentaries.

It seems that there are not many references to books in Armenian on the net. Apparently the Mesrop Mashtots Matenadaran, the Institute of Old Manuscripts, Yerevan (not the same as the Armenian National Library) has a new website. Unfortunately it is only in Armenian now. But you may see there many beautiful miniatures. One can search on that site in the bibliographies too, to find what is there in the Matenadaran collection (although presumably only if you know Armenian and can type Armenian text).

There is also a website of publications by the Gandzasar Theological Centre where my contact works and the Publishing House of Holy Etchmiadzin. She adds:

I’m still adding annotations in that section of the website and there are still many books that need to be added there. I think I’ll put there also that bibliography of biblical commentaries when I get it. So you’ll have more references for published Armenian texts. You may check our website from time to time to see the additions.  http://www.vem.am/en/topics/books-1/

The bibliography of biblical commentaries and catenas in Armenian is something we should all be interested in, and I will add more details as I find out more.

UPDATE: some commentaries in classical Armenian are available here and here.  There is also a critical edition of the classical Armenian translation of Gregory of Nyssa, On the making of man!

Share

Catenas on the Psalms in print

Posted on by Roger Pearse

Karo and Lietzmann’s Catenarum Graecarum Catalogus lists 28 different medieval Greek catenas on the psalms.  These are not 28 different copies, but 28 different types.  I confess that I have not yet read through all this material, and am awaiting the printed copy that I made and ordered.

Fortunately the printed editions of whatever exists appear at the front of each entry in K&L.  This is meagre enough.

First there is a volume by the inevitable Balthasar Corderius, in three folio volumes: Expositio Patrum Graecorum in psalmos, a. Balthasare Corderio Soc. Iesu ex vetustissimis Sac. Caes. Maiestatis, & Sereniss. Bauariae Ducis mss. codicibus … concinnata; in Paraphrasin, Commentarium et Catenam digesta; Latinitate donata. & Annotationibus illustrata . . . Antverpiae, ex officina Plantiniana Balthasaris Moreti M. DC. XLIII- VI. 3 vol. fol.

This appeared at Antwerp in 1643-6 at the Plantin-Moretus press.  I had not known that Corderius was a Jesuit, but so it appears.  He printed his text from manuscripts belonging to the Emperor and the Duke of Bavaria. He also translated what he gathered into Latin.

The mss he used were Vienna 298 and 8 (possibly also Vienna 294 on Psalm 1-50).  He also used Munich 12 and 13 to fill in what he considered to be gaps.   The edition is plainly a collection of whatever Corderius thought useful, rather than based on an edition.

The second catena in printed form listed by K&L is this: Aurea in quinquaginta Davidicos Psalmos doctorum Graecorum catena. Interprete Daniele Barbaro electo Patriarcha Aquileiensi. cum privilegio. Venetijs, apud Georgium de Caballis. MDLXIX. fol.  So this is earlier, 1569, in Venice.  It looks as if it may only be a Latin translation.  K&L give a list of authors and where the materials came from.

Most interesting of these to us are fragments of Eusebius of Caesarea’s Commentary on the Psalms.  These are contained in this, and were edited by Montfaucon in his edition of that work.  It looks as if he may have made use of manuscripts in Turin, which would be rather important as that manuscript was destroyed in 1904.

Share

Gospel catenas – from Harnack

Posted on by Roger Pearse

Here is a translation into English of the interesting remarks by Harnack that I posted here.  What is striking is that we still haven’t really advanced much.

VI.  J. A. Cramer has published catenas on the NT (8 vols, Oxford, 1838 ff).  But this edition in every way represents only a very modest beginning, and it in no way corresponds to the modern requirements for a critical edition of a catena.  Compared to the Catena of Nicephorus, it is unquestionably a backward step.

Wendland has yet to publish a catena on all four gospels.  See Mss Paris. 178 (11th c.), 187 (11th c.), 191 (11th c), 230 f. 41 (11th c.) — Paris Coislin. 19, 20, 21, 22, 23. (11th c.), 195 f. 10 (10th c.) — Venice Marcianus 27 (10th c.)  — Bodleian Laudian 33 (11th c.) Misc gr. 1 (12th c.) (where it seems that the names of the authors excerpted are omitted in the last two catenas.  Whether the same is true in the other mss above I cannot say.  If not, these mss would be least useful for the preparation of a text of named fragments.

On Matthew, the Catena of Nicetas, in which Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius, Gregory Thaumaturgus, Irenaeus, Origen (Marcion, Montanus) are cited, was printed by Petrus Possinus (Tolosae/Toulouse 1646) using a ms. of the Archbishop of Toulouse, Charles de Montchal, and a portion of a Vatican ms.  Another catena was edited by Balthasar Corderius (Tolosae 1647) following a Munich ms. (including Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus).  Cramer for his edition used the ms. Paris. Coislin 23 (11th c.) and published at the end of the volume variants from ms. Bodleian Auct T. 1. 4 (10th c.).

Mss: Cod. Vatic gr. 349 (1423 AD). — Jerusalem St. Saba 232 (10th c.) — Madrid O. 62, 63 (14th c.) — Paris. gr. 188 (11th c.) f. 1 (under the name of Chrysostom) 193 (15th c.), 194 (13th c.) (Mt. & Mk.), 199 (12th c.) (Chrysostom-catena like the first). 200 (11th c.), 201 (11th c.), 202 (12th c.), 203 (12th c.) (Chrysostom et Petrus [?] in Comm. Mt.), 231 (12th c.) (Mt., Luke, John) — Coislin. 24 (11th c.) (Mt. Mark.) (see Bodl. Misc. gr. 30 (15th c.), in which only authors after 325 AD are quoted). 

On Mark, Petrus Possinus likewise gave us a catena from a ms. of the same archbishop (see above); he also used a catena under the name of Chrysostom, which Corderius took from a Vatican ms., and finally the commentary of Victor of Antioch, previously published in Latin by Peltanus (Ingolstadt, 1580).  The commentary of Victor of Antioch was edited in Greek using Moscow mss. by Matthaei (Biktwros presb. A0ntiox… e0ch/ghsij ei0j to\ kata\ Ma/rkon eu0agge/lion, Mosquae 1775).  Cramer (Cat in NT. I, Oxon. 1840) used both a longer and shorter recension, of which the first went under the name of Cyril of Alexandria (— Chrysostom?), the other under the name of Victor.

Mss. used by Cramer are Codex Bodleian Laud. 33 (12th c.), Coislin. 23 (10th c.), Paris. gr. 178. See also: Cod. Jerusal. St. Saba 263 (13th c.) — Cod. Patmos 57 (12th c.) (after Sakkelion, Patm. bibl. p. 46 different to Possinus). — Vatic. Reg. 6 (16th c.) — Cod. Paris. 188 (11th c.) f. 141, 194 (13th c.) (Cat on Mt. & Mk). 206 (AD 1307) (Victor), Coislin. 24 (11th c.) (Cat on Mt. & Mk). 206 1. 2. (11th c.) (Chrysostom et alior. patr. comm. in IV evv.).  On a Vienna ms. see Kollarius on Lambecius, Comment. III, p. 157sq. (Cod. XXXVIII) — theol. gr. 117?

For the writers named in this catena (including Clement of Alexandria, Str. XLV [i.e. V, p. 573 see Fabricius-Harl., l. c. p. 675], Eusebius Demonstratio evangelica III, ad Marinum c. XIII, epitome chronicon, canon. chronic., Irenaeus, Justin, Marcionites, Origen [including citations from the VIth tom. in Joh.: see Cramer p. 266, 12 ff. — Origen on John VI, 14 p. 215, 5-14 Lomm., Cramer p. 314 — Origen VI, 24, p. 239, 6-21 Lomm.], Valentinians) see in Fabr.-Harl., l. c. 675.

A catena on Luke was published by B. Corderius Antwerp 1628 in Latin translation only after a Codex Venice Marcianus (he also mentions mss from  [Munich] and Vienne). The Greek text is still unpublished.

A commentary based on Titus of Bostra was published by Cramer, Caten. in NT. II, Oxon. 1841 following Cod. Bodl. Auct. T. 1.4 and Laud. 33.

The far more important Catena on Luke (by Nicetas of Serrae), for which we are still dependent on the Latin translation by Corderius, can be found in the following mss:

Codex Vaticanus 1611. 759 (12th c.) see Cod. Vatic. 1270. 349. 758. 1423. 547. — Casanat. G. V. 14. — Vatic. Palat 20 (13th c.) Vatic. Regin. 3 (11th c.), 6 (16th c.) — Jerusalem St. Sabae. 263 (13th c.) — Paris. 208 (14th c.), 211 (13th c.) (Joh., Luke). 212 (13th c.), 213 (14th c.), 231 (12th c.), 232 (12th c.) — Munich 33 (16th c.), 473 (13th c.) (see 208, 10th c., f. 235). — Bodleian Misc. 182 (11th c.) f. 174b. (See Paris. 193, 15th c., which contains fragments).

For a list of authors cited (including Clement of Alexandria, Dionysius of Alexandria, Eusebius, [Gregory Thaumat.?], Hippolytus, Irenaeus, Justin, Methodius, Origen) see Fabricius-Harl., l. c. p. 687 sqq.

A catena on John was also published by Balthasar Corderius, Antverp. 1630 (after an ms. from  Trier). A shorter catena was edited by Cramer, Cat. in NT II, Oxon. 1841.

Mss: Cod. Madrid O. 10. O. 32. — Paris. 188 (11th c.) f. 203 (under the name of Chrysostom, like many of the following mss.), 189 (12th c.) f. 1., 200 (11th c.), 201 (11th c.), 202 (12th c.), 209 (11-12th c.), 210 (12th c.), 211 (13th c.), 212 (13th c.), 213 (14th c.), 231 (12th c.) — Munich 37 (16th c.), 208 (10th c.) f. 107., 437 (11th c.), Florence Laurentianus VI, 18. — Vatican Regin. 9 (10th c.) — Bodleian Barocci 225 (12th c.), Miscell. 182 (11th c.) f. 174b. — Berlin Phillips 1420 (16th c.)

Authors cited are given in Fabric-Harl., l. c p. 689 ff. (includes: Basi­lides, Cerinthus, Irenaeus, Marcion, Menander, Montanus, Nicolaus, Novatus, Origen, Papias, Sabellius, Saturninus).

Share

New NIV to be released in 2011

Posted on by Roger Pearse

The New International Version of the bible is pretty much the standard translation used by more Christians than any other, although probably still less than 50%.  The standing of the translation was badly damaged by an attempt to produce a version revised in accordance with political correctness.  Known as the TNIV, this version caused immense offence. 

I learn today that the copyright owners intend to produce a new revision of the NIV itself, in 2011.  Suggestions for the new  version can be sent to nivbible2011.com, apparently.  The press release is here.  It makes no reference to the TNIV debacle.  

A USA Today report here gives more details, and Crosswalk.com gives more again.  Various comments were made during the press conference, in response to a question and answer session:

“Whatever its strengths were, the TNIV divided the evangelical Christian community,” Moe Girkins, Zondervan’s president, said. “As we launch this new NIV in 2011, we will discontinue putting out new products with the TNIV.”

The silence in the press release, and in the speeches given, this all suggests to me that the TNIV is being abandoned because it failed, not because the owners think they did wrong.  This means, of course, that they may try again.  I doubt the NIV will survive further attempts to corrupt it.

When I think about the NIV, and the idea of revising it, I frankly feel nervous.  I find that emotionally I don’t trust the revisers not to try to sneak an extra-biblical ideology into the text.  I suspect a lot of people feel the same.

So what is to be done?  If the owners of the text are serious about abandoning this enterprise, they need to take some serious steps.  First they need to acknowledge publicly that what was done was wrong; and I see no signs of this.  Next they need to change the composition of the board that oversees what happens, because those who did wrong once (wittingly or otherwise) will do it again.   Until we see change, how can we have confidence in the board?  Thirdly, they might consider simply leaving the NIV alone.  There is no pressing need to tinker, tinker, tinker.  In fact such tinkering damages the translation.  It would be better – far better – to leave the translation alone for 15 or 20 years, and get the text established. 

The whole business is very, very sad.  I grieve for what has happened, for how it has allowed the unbelievers to triumph over Zion.

To me, the whole business and the way it has worked out smells strongly of the Pit.  Who benefits from destroying the credibility of what was fast becoming the standard English translation?  The Body of Christ does not benefit.  No man seeking salvation benefits.  But perhaps Hell does.  Those who seek the ruin of us all do seem to benefit.  Their cause is advanced.  The dissention among previously close friends, the creation of mistrust and anger, the perception that the gospel is whatever people say it is… surely these are things that must be dear to the heart of the Enemy of us all?

It is easy to write as if those who chose to do this evil thing did so intentionally and open-eyed.  But I see no signs of this.  I think that it is most unlikely that they had any such intention, or intended to produce a “politically correct” bible at all!  On the contrary, I suspect they were led, step by step, believing that they were really doing the right thing, that God would be pleased and the gospel served, as if by an angel of light.  They probably never realised that a line had been crossed.  They probably never intentionally crossed it, but were led on from one thing to another, softly, gently, without ill-will.

Satan loves to do this to us. He loves to draw us on, to seduce us, without allowing us to ever quite realise that all these harmless little steps really amount to a massive change of direction which takes us out of our accustomed orbit around the Son and into the darkness.  Those approaching a cliff may do so by sleepy little steps.  But one of those harmless little steps will not be so harmless. Suddenly the cliff-edge gives way. Waking, we find, to our horror, that we are falling, falling towards the rocks, into sin and death.  Above us, as we fall in fear and misery, with certainty of pain ahead, there is demonic laughter at us.

This, I think, is what may have happened to the NIV team.  If so they weren’t the first, and won’t be the last.  But the first need is to recognise that they have been led into a serious sin, to repent, and take measures to deal with it.  Just going on, as if nothing had happened, will not serve, and will make things worse.

Share

A couple more letters by Isidore of Pelusium

Posted on by Roger Pearse

Explanations of biblical passages form quite a portion of the letters.

1243 (IV.48) TO AMMONIUS

For fear of presumption,  a terrible ill from which one can escape with difficulty, lest we remain on earth and be deprived of the heavenly rewards, the Lord said:  “Now let us leave this place!” [John 14:31]  Indeed, having engaged His own power in the word which He spoke, He delivered his true disciples from tyrannical passions and made them pass into the celestial assembly.

The French editor, Pierre Evieux, tells is that the following letter is also preserved in the catenas on Romans found in two manuscripts, Vatican. gr. 762 (10th c.) and Vienna. Theol. gr. 166 (14th c.). 

In Romans 1:32, Paul condemns people who, not merely commit a sin, but even approve of those who do the same.  Theologios queries why it is wrong to consider those who encourage sin in others as worse than those who actually commit the sin themselves.  Isidore’s reply is interesting as showing that some were willing to suppose a corruption in the text here.

1244 (IV.60) TO THEOLOGIOS THE DEACON

Since you’ve provided us the occasion to return to the apostolic treasures — in fact you said:  ‘It says “Not only do they do this, but also they approve of those who do this” [Rom. 1:32] and you added:  If the approval is worse than the action itself, why did Paul adopt this order [of words] here?’ — call a little upon your good sense to work out the sense of the apostolic saying which is escaping you, and listen. 

There are some people who did not understand the quotation but which, being embarassed like yourself and supposing that the apostolic expressions are corrupt, have interpreted them this manner: “Not only are there  those who do this, but also those who approve those who do this.”  According to them, the primitive text was presented thus to make it understood that the action was the more serious and approval of it less serious.  For me, without saying that the apostolic books display an error in this passage, without siding either with those who did not understand — because perhaps, even if they are wrong on this passage, on others they are right, and they have caught the direction of passages that, for my part, I did not manage to understand — I will set out what I understood and will allow the judgement of the readers to decide if I am right. 

So, in my opinion, it is because to praise the culprits is much more wong and more serious from the point of view of the punishment that this sentence is relevant:   “Not only do they do this, but also they approve of those who do this.” Because he who condemns his sin after the misdeed will be able in time to repent one day, finding the judgment of the sin a very great help in changing his attitude;  while he who speaks in praise of the evil will deprive himself of the help which repentance procures.  So because this judgement concerns a corrupt conscience and a heart tainted with an incurable disease, he who speaks in praise of the fault of the culprit is rightly judged more culpable.  Because the one will very quickly be diverted from sin, the other not at all, according to whether the judgement relates to he who commits the misdeed or he  who approves it. 

Share