The Waldensian Confession of 1120

[rlvaughn]

While searching for biographical information on Jean Paul Perrin, author of Luther's Forerunners: or, A cloud of Witnesses, deposing for the Protestant Faith, gathered together in the Historie of the Waldenses, et al., I found a Baptist Board thread titled The 1120 Waldensian Confession, wasn't, by member CarpentersApprentice. [I didn't want to revive a "zombie thread" so I'm starting a new thread here.] In the thread CA said that the 1120 confession actually haled from the 1500s.

The Waldensian Confession of Faith purported to have been written in 1120 was written in the 1500’s, not the 1100’s. The issue is the Books of Samuel. Calling 1st and 2nd Samuel by these names demonstrates that the 1120 Confession was not written in the 1100’s.

Note how Perrin refers to Samuel. Originally the books of Samuel and Kings constituted one unit, but because of their length were divided into two. The Book of Samuel is the eighth book of the Hebrew Bible. The Septuagint (LXX, ca. 200 BC) divided the books again, titling the resulting parts First and Second Kingdoms (I and II Samuel), followed by Third and Fourth Kingdoms (I and II Kings). In the later Vulgate (ca. 400 AD) “Kingdoms” became “Kings.” Hebrew manuscripts continued to treat Samuel as one book until the introduction of the printed Bible in the 16th century (the Bomberg Bible of 1517), when the division into I and II Samuel was accepted.

Thus, the earliest compilations of the Bible listed I & II Samuel and I & II Kings together as I, II, III, and IV Kings. Following the LXX and the Vulgate, Wycliffe’s Bible (ca. 1380) and the Gutenberg Bible (ca. 1455) retained the book titles of First and Second Kings for the Book of Samuel. If the 1120 Confession had actually been written in 1120 the listing of 1st and 2nd Samuel would have been written as 1st and 2nd Kings. And the listing of 1st and 2nd Kings would have been written as 3rd and 4th Kings.

In short, the date of 1120 on the confession is a canard. Listing the book of Samuel as 1st and 2nd Samuel, instead of 1st and 2nd Kings - as the confession does in article 3 - belies the 1120 date of the document. This confession was not written in the 12th century. This confession was written no earlier that the late 15th century, almost 400 years after the date of the document.

The 1120 Confession can be found on the web in several places, often from the truncated version given by William Jones. Covenant Baptist Church gives a version that is supposed to be from Samuel Morland. The Confession is also linked here from History of the Ancient Christians Inhabiting the Valleys of the Alps.

CarpentersApprentice's assertion seems reasonable, but my question is whether this is the only explanation. For example, might either the author or the translator (Perrin's works were originally written in French, and, I think, first translated into Dutch) have changed the terminology to something with which they were more familiar? Or some other explanation? Or did Perrin "practice to deceive" (or was himself deceived)?

 

[Squire Robertsson]

I could go with a later editor or translator updating the references. I have to make the shift when I edit a translation from a text using the Russian Synodical Version. The RSV Pslams numbers jump around and it transposes a big chunk of Romans.

 

[Jerome]

Oh please. One can go straight to the pages of Codex Theodulphianus and see First and Second Samuel designated as such:

(page where First Samuel ends, Second Samuel begins)

rough transcription from what I remember of Latin paleography, lots of abbreviation:

Expl- lib- prim- samuhel-
Inc-p-t lib- sec-d-s samuhelis

 

[rlvaughn]

rough transcription from what I remember of Latin paleography, lots of abbreviation:

Expl- lib- prim- samuhel-
Inc-p-t lib- sec-d-s samuhelis

When I could have taken Latin in High School, I took French instead (what was is thinking?). But I would surmise that these abbreviations mean "end book first Samuel" and "begin book second Samuel".

If this list at Wikipedia can be trusted, Codex Theodulphianus, Codex Toletanus and Codex Complutensis (about the same age) are the oldest Vulgates with the Old Testament, and possibly 200 years older than the Waldensian Confession. So that negates the Apprentice's argument that these books were never called 1 and 2 Samuel before the 1500s.

Thanks.

 

[rlvaughn]

So far I haven't found much on Jean Paul Perrin in sources I have access to, but apparently he was no slouch. According to Daniel Walther in Were the Albigenses and Waldenses Forerunners of the Reformation, Perrin was pastor of the church at Nyons in France, and was first commissioned to write on the Albigenses:

An important step was taken at the national synod of La Rochelle in 1607, where the pastor of Nyons (Dauphine), Jean-Paul Perrin, was commissioned to write a history of the Albigenses. The synod called for documents to be submitted to Perrin. It was also stated that such a history should not merely describe the persecution of the Albigenses; their teachings and rites were to be carefully examined as well.

The task apparently included oversight and collaboration of others inspecting various documents that were available.

In dealing with spiritual ancestors, the synods took their task seriously. A commission was appointed to examine carefully the documents, and financial assistance was to be granted to Perrin. His manuscript was ready in 1612 and was finally published in Geneva in 1618.

[I think Walther was an Adventist, but the article appears well researched, and parts I was looking at agree with other info I found.]

 

[rsr]

Thanks for opening this can of worms, Robert.

The original technical exceptions aside, there are some practical difficulties with Perrin's work. The confession was supposedly dated 1120. Did Perrin see the document? Probably not, but accepted it from a secondary source. But if he saw it, could he actually read it? That would be like a Jacobean reading not Chaucer but Old English.

It is also important to understand the mileu. Morland, who perpetuated the idea of the Waldensians as being proto-Protestants, was sent on his mission by Oliver Cromwell, who was eager to support the Waldensians as Protestants to counter the Catholic king of France. No doubt Morland was able to find support of Reformed beliefs because many of the Waldensians adopted Reformed doctrines in the mid-16th century to make common cause against Catholic rulers who had made their lives miserable.

The 1120 confession has been repeated innumerable times on the internet, in large part by Baptists, but it is hard to find any modern scholar who thinks it is genuine.

 

[rlvaughn]

Thanks for opening this can of worms, Robert.

You can count on me!

The 1120 confession has been repeated innumerable times on the internet, in large part by Baptists, but it is hard to find any modern scholar who thinks it is genuine.

Not arguing with your point, but I'd be interested in being pointed to some specifically so I can read some of the points of those modern scholars. I found one online yesterday, but he was a Catholic who was very invested in proving there was little to no valid dissent to their "true" church, and that the Waldenses circa 1100-1200 were (I suppose) just rogue Catholics.