The Sentences Book 2: On Creation (Mediaeval Sources in Translation)

This is the only, to-date, Modern English presentation of Peter's Masterpiece. This work was the go-to work for all theologians of this era. It has been commentated upon by countless theologians. The translation is well done with supporting notes. A must have for one's library.

Summary: Peter Lombard presents a confused understanding of Augustine’s view of creation and anthropology modified to a semi-Pelagian to almost Pelagian theology either purposely or through ignorance of Augustine’s authentic works.According to Peter, “For there is in the rational soul a natural will, by which it naturally wills what is good, although weakly and feebly, unless grace assists. . .” (2.24.1.3, pg. 109). This free will is described as such “because, without compulsion or necessity, it is able to desire or elect what it has decreed by reason” (2.25.4.2, pg. 118). “And yet we do not deny that there are many good things which are done by man through free choice before this grace and apart from grace” (2.26.7.2, pg. 130).And then this lovely quote which he attributes to Jerome, but since the Renaissance is now recognized as Pelagius:Jerome teaches in his Explanation of the Catholic Faith to Pope Damascus, where he strikes at the errors of Jovinian, Manichaeus, and Pelagius, saying: “We acknowledge that choice is free so as to say that we are always in need of God’s aid; and that both those are in error who say with Manichaeus that man cannot avoid sin, and those who assert with Jovinian that man cannot sin. Each of them takes away freedom of choice. But we say that man is always able to sin and not to sin, so that we confess ourselves to be ever free in our choice. This is the faith which we learned in the Catholic Church and which we have always held.”It’s not clear to me that Peter Lombard is unaware that he is quoting Pelagius to support conclusions that are both non-Augustinian and unbiblical. (This will be discussed more in the review on book 3 and 4.) At the same time “among the works attributed to Augustine” were sermons, letters, and writings that were not authentically Augustinian in authorship or doctrine, and so it is possible that he’s struggling to harmonize self-contradictory teachings within what he understands is Augustine’s canon. This is occurs while he attempts to harmonize the contradictory teaching of Ambrose, Augustine, Jerome, Bede, and so forth. There is even an effort to harmonize these diverse teachings with the Bible.He teaches along with others before him that the “pollution which the flesh contracts in its conception from the burning of the parents’ joining and their lustful concupiscence” (2.32.6.2, pg. 156). In other words, we are born with a sin nature or original sin, because our parents or one of our parents enjoyed conceiving us. While Augustine in his authentic works lays out the framework for this sort of doctrine, the most blatant support comes from Augustine-like quotes from Fulgentius (c. 462-527).Peter Lombard also rejects the possibility that at conception both physical and spiritual elements of parents are passed to the child. The technical term for this is traducianism: Peter rather firmly states, “But the Catholic faith utterly rejects this and condemns it as opposed to truth since, as we said above, that faith admits that flesh alone, and not souls, is transmitted. And so it is not according to the flesh, that original sin is derived from parents” (2.31.3.1, pg. 154). Augustine was certainly more open to the possibility than this quote allows and traducianism was held by other church fathers including Tertullian.Oddly enough he provides an explanation of the pop-culture reference to an angel on one shoulder and a demon on the other: apparently this was first taught by Origen, then by Gregory of Nyssa, and popularized for posterity by Lombard (2.11.1.2, pg. 46).He may have originated the now hoary-headed sermon illustration:Why woman was formed from the man’s side and not from some other part of his body. But although woman was made from man for these reasons, nevertheless she was formed not from must any part of his body, but from his side, so that it should be shown that she was created for the partnership of love, lest, if perhaps she had been made from his head, she should be perceived as set over man in domination; or if from his feet, as if subject to him in servitude. Therefore since she was made neither to dominate, nor to serve man, but as his partner, she had to be produced neither from his head, nor from his feet, but from his side, so that he would know that she was to be placed beside himself whom he had learned had been taken from his side (2.28.2; pg. 77).Benefits/Detriments: Book 2 exposes what happens when a possibly earnest attempt is made to harmonize the Bible, current church practice, and the diverse teaching of the church fathers. It’s rather a mishmash and at points incoherent.

It is a Very importante ne that a famous publisher like PIMS has offered this opportunity for all The scholars Who are studying this questione, me too.It is a Very satisfaction use this Book of Sentenze, translated in English Very Well And Very Clear. Tank You To The translator and the publisher!.

Great buy...

I bought this because a close reading of Genesis 1 was raising questions that were certainly not being answered by the text. One of the explicit intentions of Peter Lombard behind the four books of the Sentences, was to answer some of the questions that the reading of scripture raised, and to respond to what appeared to be contradictions. Doubtless it was the same kind of motives that prompted al-Ghazzali to write the Ihya, doing the same kind of thing in respect of the Qur'an. One big difference though, was that the Sentences became the standard text book for theological schools for the next three hundred years, prompting more commentaries - apart from the Bible, than any other single text; even Luther wrote a commentary.As an example of a contradiction, he cites Ecclesiasticus 1:4 which says 'Wisdom hath been created before all things', and to answer he goes back to Genesis 1 i, 'In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth', not reading it as a synopsis of what is to follow, but as the very first statement of the account. Heaven - which includes the angels, is invisible; the earth, being without form and void, consists of a mixture of the four primal elements - he uses the Greek word, chaos. The use of the 'we' and the possessive plural pronoun, does not refer to the angels, but the Trinity, and he takes his lead from Augustine, and acknowledges that this is so. In fact this principle of citing authority, he takes from Abelard who he once studied under. And he is not afraid to say that 'some of the fathers got it wrong.' In one sense, the Sentences epitomise the scholastic approach by the use of distinction, particularly when it comes to the meanings of words, and how they are used. On the other hand, he is so certain that the universe is earth centered, that the light initially created would have been dim, and so the sun was put in the same place so that the day would be brighter, noting that the first day has no morning - but does not have a very convincing explanation.He is obviously familiar with Plato's Timeaus, and uses the same kind of reasons why not everything can be explained. He distinquishes between a creator and a maker. In some areas, such as whether the soul was created before the body, he cites various opinions from different authorities, but does not push for a particular one; in other cases a literal reading is felt to be sufficient.This is a very clear translation, and after some reading, it is easy to follow the method used, and how the viewpoint became established as the viewpoint, in terms of Catholic Theology. The Catholic Church of the time not only had concerns about the illiteracy of the laity, but also the theological illiteracy of the clergy: this was an answer. It did not answer all questions, and many that it did answer there was a variation in the level by which it was answered. The knowledge of creatures was not given to Adam by God or the angels, but from man himself, hence his naming them, is one example where I found the answer very unsatisfactory, but then the Church's teaching was to get man to think of divine things and not earthly things, and the particular view of things which it called Christian Doctrine. What is interesting is that this was written in what we now call the 12thc. Renaissance, and the Gothic Cathedral building programme.