 |
|||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 |
Decretum Gelasianum
An Index of Apocrypha c.491 CE
Web Publication by Mountain Man Graphics, Australia
 | ||||||
|
|
|||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Decretum Gelasianum
An Index of Apocrypha c.491 CE
Web Publication by Mountain Man Graphics, Australia
| ||||||
Introduction |
|---|
A second section lists the remainder of the Decretum Gelasianum, that is, Chapter 1 - About Christ and the Spirit; Chapter 2 - A List of Canonical Books; Chapter 3 - About the three chief Sees : Rome, Alexandria, Antioch; and Chapter 4 - List of Books to be received.
In a third section is presented an extract of an article concerning the provenance of the text, and a number of theories as to its chronology.
List of Apocrypha c.491 CE |
|---|
These and those similar ones, which
whose names we have scarcely preserved, have taught or compiled, we acknowledge is to be not merely rejected but eliminated from the whole Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church and with their authors and the followers of its authors to be damned in the inextricable shackles of anathema forever.
Chapters 2 to 4 of Decretum Gelasianum |
|---|
1. THIS IS THE ORDER OF THE OLD TESTAMENT:
2. LIKEWISE THE ORDER OF THE PROPHETS
3. LIKEWISE THE ORDER OF THE HISTORIES
4. LIKEWISE THE ORDER OF THE SCRIPTURES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
which the holy and catholic Roman church upholds and is venerated:
Four books of the Gospels
The letters of the apostle Paul in number fourteen
Likewise the canonical [catholic] letters in number seven
HERE ENDS THE CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
HERE BEGINS THE DECRETAL 'ON BOOKS TO BE RECEIVED AND NOT TO BE RECEIVED'
WHICH WAS WRITTEN BY POPE GELASIUS AND SEVENTY MOST ERUDITE BISHOPS
AT THE APOSTOLIC SEAT IN THE CITY OF ROME
Both versions then continue as follows:
1. After all these [writings of] the prophets and the evangelical and apostolic scriptures which we discussed above, on which the catholic church is founded by the grace of God, we also have thought necessary to say what, although the universal catholic church diffused throughout the world is the single bride of Christ, however the holy Roman church is given first place by the rest of the churches without [the need for] a synodical decision, but from the voice of the Lord our saviour in the gospel obtained primacy: 'You are Peter,' he said, 'and upon this rock I shall build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it; and to you I give the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall bind upon Earth shall be bound also in heaven and whatever you release upon Earth shall also be released in heaven'.
2. In addition there is also the presence of the blessed apostle Paul, 'the chosen vessel', who not in opposition, as the heresies jabber, but on the same date and the same day was crowned in glorious death with Peter in the city of Rome suffering under Nero Caesar; and equally they made the above-mentioned holy Roman church special in Christ the Lord and gave preference in their presence and veneration-worthy triumph before all other cities in the whole world.
3. Therefore first is the seat at the Roman church of the apostle Peter 'having no spot or wrinkle or any other [defect]'.
However the second place was given in the name of blessed Peter to Mark his disciple and gospel-writer at Alexandria, and who himself wrote down the word of truth directed by Peter the apostle in Egypt and gloriously consummated [his life] in martyrdom.
Indeed the third place is held at Antioch of the most blessed and honourable apostle Peter, who lived there before he came to Roma and where first the name of the new race of the Christians was heard.
IV. And although 'no other foundation can be established except that which has been established, Christ Jesus', however for edification likewise the holy Roman church after the books of the Old and New Testaments which we have enumerated above according to the canon also does not prohibit the reception of these writings:
1. the holy synod of Nicaea of 318 fathers chaired by the Emperor Constantine the Great, at which the heretic Arius was condemned;
the holy synod of Constantinople chaired by Theodosius the senior Augustus, at which the heretic Macedonius escaped his deserved condemnation;
the holy synod of Ephesus, at which Nestorius was condemned with the consent of the blessed pope Caelestinus chaired by Cyril of Alexandria in the magistrate's seat and by Arcadius the bishop sent from Italy;
the holy synod of Chalcedon chaired by Marcian Augustus and by Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople, at which the Nestorian et Eutychian heresies together with Dioscorus and his sympathisers were condemned.
but also if there are councils hitherto held by the holy fathers of lesser authority than those four, we have decreed [that] they must be both kept and received.
Here added below is on the works of the holy fathers, which are received in the catholic church.
3. likewise the letter of blessed pope Leo sent to Flavian Bishop of Constantinople, of which text however if any portion is disputed and it is not that anciently received by all, let it be anathema;
likewise the works and every treatise of all the orthodox fathers, who deviated in nothing from the common [teaching] of the holy Roman church, neither separated from its faith or worship but remained in communion by the grace of God to the last day of their life, we decree are to be read;
likewise the decretal/official letters, which blessed popes gave for the consideration of various fathers at various times from the city of Rome, are to be upheld reverently;
4. likewise the deeds of the holy martyrs, who are glorious from the manifold tortures on the rack and their wonderful triumphs of steadfastness. Who of the catholics doubts that most of them would be enduring still in agonies with their full strength but would bear it by the grace of God and the help of everyone? but according to old custom by the greatest caution they are not read in the holy Roman church, because the names of those who wrote are not properly known and separate from unbelievers and idiots or [the accounts] are thought less attached to the order of events than they should have been; for instance the [accounts of] Cyricus and Julitta, like Georgius and the sufferings of others like these which appear to have been composed by heretics. On account of this, as it was said, so that no pretext for casual mockery can arise, they are not read in the holy Roman church. However we venerate together with the aforesaid church all the martyrs and their glorious sufferings, which are well known to God and men, with every devotion;
likewise the lives of the fathers Paul, Antony and Hilarion which with all the hermits described by that blessed man Jerome we receive with honour;
likewise the acts of blessed Silvester bishop of the apostolic seat, although the name of him who wrote [them] is unknown, [but] we know to be read by many catholics however in the city of Rome and because of the ancient use of the multitude this is imitated by the church;
likewise the writings on the finding of the cross and certain other novel writings on the finding of the head of the blessed John the Baptist are romances and some of them are read by catholics; but when these come into the hand of catholics, the saying of Paul the blessed apostle should be
likewise Rufinus, a most religious man, work many books of ecclesiastical works, also some interpreting the scriptures; but since the venerable Jerome noted that he took arbitary liberties in some of them, we think those [acceptable] which we know the aforesaid blessed Jerome thought [acceptable]; and not only those of Rufinus, but also [those] of anyone whom that man often remembered for his zeal for God and for the religion of faith criticised.
likewise some works of Origen, which the blessed man Jerome does not reject, we receive to be read, but we say that the rest with their author must be refused.
likewise the chronicle of Eusebius of Caesarea and the books of his church history,
however much he fell flat in the first book of his narration and [although he also]
afterwards wrote one book in praise and to excuse Origen the schismatic, however on account of his narration of remarkable things, which are useful for instruction,
we do not say to anyone that it must be refused.
likewise we praise Orosius a most erudite man, who wrote a very necessary history
for us against the calumnies of the pagans and and with marvellous brevity.
likewise the paschal work of that venerable man Sedulius,
which was written in heroic verses [hexameters], we give preference to with manifest praise.
likewise the laborious work of Iuvencus
we nevertheless do not spurn but are amazed by.
V. The remaining writings which have been compiled
or been recognised by heretics or schismatics
the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church does not
in any way receive; of these we have thought it right
to cite below a few which have been handed down and which are to be avoided by catholics.
(See Section One of this Article)
BURKITT on the DECRETUM GELASIANUM |
|---|
SCHOLARS often refer to the Gelasian Decretal and they sometimes quote it. But it may be questioned whether many have ever read it as a whole. They are content to know (I quote from Westcott On the Canon, 5th ed., p. 453) that 'Credner has examined at great length the triple recension of the famous decretal On Ecclesiastical Books. His conclusion briefly is that (1) In its original form it was drawn up in the time of Gelasius, c. 500 A.D. (2) It was then enlarged in Spain, c. 500-700 A. D. (3) Next published as a decretal of Hormisdas (Pope 514-523 A.D.) in Spain, with additions. (4) And lastly variously altered at later times '.
The Decretum Gelasianum consists of five chapters :
I. About Christ and the Spirit. II. List of Canonical Books. III. About the three chief Sees : Rome, Alexandria, Antioch. IV. List of Books to be received. V. List of Apocryphal Books.In 1794 F. Arevalo, the editor of Sedulius, started the theory that the first three of these five chapters were really the decrees of a Roman Council held a century earlier than Gelasius, under Damasus, in 382 A.D. Certain MSS seemed to give this earlier document separately, and Arevalo's conclusions have been widely accepted, notably by Maassen and Zahn. Readers of this JOURNAL will remember that in vol. i pp. 554-560, Mr C. H. Turner edited from four MSS of the eighth and ninth centuries the text of these first three chapters with the title of 'The Roman Council under Damasus'. On this theory the 'Damasine' List is the earliest Conciliar Western List of the Canonical Books, a List, in fact, two years earlier than the publication of the first instalment of the Latin Vulgate. It had been Professor v. Dobschütz's intention to publish the Damasine and Gelasian forms side by side (i. e. I, II, III and III, IV, V, c. III being common to both), but in the course of his investigation he came to very different conclusions. According to v. Dobschütz all five chapters belong to the same original work, which is no genuine decree or letter either of Damasus or Gelasius, but a pseudonymous literary production of the first half of the sixth century (between 519 and 553).
There can, I think, be little doubt that v. Dobschütz has made out his case. The really decisive point is that in I 3, in the part most directly associated with Damasus, there is a quotation of some length from Augustine in Joh. ix 7 (Migne, xxxv 146l).1 As Augustine was writing about 416, it is evident that the Title Incipit Concilium Vrbis Romae sub Damaso Papa de Explanatione Fidei is of no historical value.
The proof that the document is not a real Decretal of Gelasius or any other Pope is almost as decisive, if not quite so startling. In the first place v. Dobschütz makes it clear (p. 213) that the shorter form I-III implies the longer form, [2] and therefore is derived from it. Further, the short form III-V, which was supposed to contain the genuine decree of Gelasius, turns out to be a recension of the whole work, in which the phrases which refer back to I and II have been carefully suppressed or altered (p. 214). This recension appears to have been made in Gaul in the seventh century (p. 399) : that known as Hormisdas, containing II-V, is a Spanish recension, but the Spaniard Isidor used chap. I, in fact he is the earliest witness to the work. Had it been an official decree of Gelasius it would have been known and used by Dionysius Exiguus and Cassiodorus.
Thus these famous Lists represent no Papal ordinance, but are the production of an anonymous scholar of the sixth century. He must have been a fairly well-read man for that time and shews a good acquaintance with the writings of St Jerome, but v. Dobschütz does not believe that he had read, or even seen, most of. the 'Apocryphal' books which he condemns (pp. 333-334). For various reasons the work can hardly have been compiled in Africa or Spain, and Gaul is on the whole unlikely : 'es bleibt für den Ursprung des Dokuments nur Italien übrig' (p. 350). Certainly the description of the last book in the N. T. as Iudae Zelotis apostoli epistula una makes for N. Italy or Gaul, the only evidence for the apostle Judas Zelotes coming from those regions. In Matt. x 3, in the place of Thaddaeus, Judas Zelotes is found in a b g h q gatcorr mm, and the Mosaics of the great Baptistery at Ravenna (fifth century).[3] So far as I know there is no evidence for this name from Africa, Spain, or the British Isles.
A word should be said in conclusion upon the amazing mass of detail collected by Prof. v. Dobschütz and the clearness with which he has presented it. He has used eighty-six manuscripts, besides six (class D') which contain the text in a second recension. To make this vast quantity of material intelligible he has first printed the full original text with only the real variants of the 'Gelasian' recension at the foot of the page. This leaves room for a clear indication of Biblical references and for the incipits and explicits of the several recensions. After this he repeats the text line for line with full apparatus, excluding only the spelling of the Proper Names, which are given separately in alphabetical order. Praise is often bestowed on our German fellow-workers for industry and fault found with their style, but very few Frenchmen or Englishmen would have marshalled the vast and unwieldy army of authorities so skilfully as is done in this book. It is a work that should be studied by all editors of much-copied texts.
[1] The passage is printed J. T. S. 1 556 f, ll. 23-27 : v. Dobschütz, p. 245 f.
[2] Chap. II, title, post haec quid uitare debeat implies a list
of rejected Books, such as chap. V.
[3] A relic of this confusion no doubt survives in the coupling together
of St Simon and St Jude for purposes of commemoration.