Being Savage # 58 - Being Latin - Dionysius Petavius

[Anonymous]

Dionysius Petavius

old english translation of history of the world or an account of time

http://64.233.189.132/translate_c?hl=en ... lI-63kBFDQ

according to the Catholic encyclopedia

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11743a.htm

One of the most distinguished theologians of the seventeenth century, born at Orléans, 1583; died at Paris, 11 December, 1652. He studied first at Orléans, then at Paris, where he successfully defended his theses for the degree of Master of Arts, not in Latin, but in Greek. After this he followed the theological lectures at the Sorbonne, and, on the advice of Ysambert, successfully applied for the chair of philosophy at Bourges. At Paris he became very intimate with Isaac Casaubon (see Letters MXXIV, MXXVIII, MXXXVIII, MXLIV), librarian at the Bibliothèque Royale, where he spent all his spare time studying the ancient Greek manuscripts. At Orléans he was ordained deacon and presented with a canonry. After spending two years at Bourges he returned to Paris, and entered into relations with Fronton du Duc, the editor of St. John Chrysostom. In 1605 he became a Jesuit, taught rhetoric at Reims (1609), La Flèche (1613), and at the College of Paris (1618). During this last period he began a correspondence with the Bishop of Orléans, Gabriel de Laubépine (Albaspinæus), on the first year of the primitive Church. From 1622 he taught positive theology for twenty-two years. During this time he was about to leave France on two occasions — first, to teach ecclesiastical history at Madrid at the invitation of Philip IV (1629), secondly to become a cardinal at Rome where Urban VIII wanted him (1639). At sixty years of age he stopped teaching, but retained his office of librarian, in which he had succeeded Fronton du Duc (1623), and consecrated the rest of his life to his great work, the "Dogmata theologica". The virtues of Pétau were not inferior to his talent; he was a model of humility and regularity, and, in spite of his feeble health, practised continual and severe mortifications. His ardent zeal for the Church inspired a rare talent to which his numerous works bear evidence; he devoted himself to the study of literature (Greek and Latin poets) and to other more erudite forms of learning.

The complete list of his works fills twenty-five columns in Sommervogel: he treats of chronology, history, philosophy, polemics, patristics, and history of dogma. The first edition of the works of Synesius appeared in 1612, undertaken ten years earlier at the advice of Casaubon ("Synesii episcopi Cyrenensis opera", new ed., 1633); in 1613 and 1614 the discourses of Themistius and Julian (new ed., 1630); in 1616 the "Breviarium historicum Nicephori"; then, after some poetical and oratorical works, an edition of St. Epiphanius in two volumes (1622; new ed., 1632), which had been undertaken at the advice of Jacques Gretser, S.J., and was originally intended only as a revised translation of Janus Cornarius. In 1622 and 1623 appeared the "Mastigophores", three pamphlets, and the notes dealing with Saumaise's "Tertullian", ahitter polemical work. Among his previous writings, Pétau had inserted some masterly dissertations on chronology; in 1627 he brought out his "De doctrina temporum", and later the "Tabulæ chronologicæ" (1628, 1629, 1633, 1657). It surpassed Scaliger's "De Emendatione temporum" (Paris, 1583), and prepared the ground for the works of the Benedictines. A summary of it appeared in 1633 (1635, 1641, etc.) under the title of "Rationarium temporum", of which numerous reprints and translations intoFrench, English, and Italian have been made. About the same time (1636-44) appeared poetical works in Greek and in Latin and dissertations (often of a polemical nature) against Grotius, Saumaise, Arnauld, etc. His paraphrase of the Psalms in Greek verse was dedicated to Urban VIII (in 1637). Finally there appeared in 1643 the first three volumes of the "Dogmata theologica" (dated 1644); the fourth and fifth volumes were published in 1650. The work was incomplete at the death of the author, and, despite several attempts, was never continued. Numerous editions of the "Dogmatatheologica" have been published, including that by the Calvinist Jean Le Clerc (Clericus, alias Theophile Alethinus), published in Antwerp (Amsterdam) in 1700; the last edition was brought out in eight volumes by J. B. Fournials (Paris, 1866-8). In 1757 F. A. Zaccaria, S.J. republished the work in Venice with notes, dissertations, etc.; in 1857 Passaglia and Schrader undertook a similar work, but they produced only the first volume. His letters, "Epistolarum libri tres", were published after his death; though far from being complete, they give an idea of his close acquaintance with the most famous men in France, Holland, Italy, etc.; they also furnish valuable information on the composition of his works and his method.

The reputation Pétau enjoyed during his lifetime was especially due to his work on chronology; numerous eulogies were pronounced on him by his contemporaries, such as Huet, Valois, Grotius, Isaac Voss, F. Clericus, Noris, etc. His chronological work has long since been surpassed, and a list of errors — inevitable at the period — could be drawn up even in the case of this man who boasted that he counted no less than eight thousand mistakes in the "Annals" of Baronius. But the great glory, which in the eyes of posterity surrounds the name of Pétau, is due to his patristic works and his importance in the history of dogma. With good reason he may be styled the "Father of the History of Dogma". The success of his work in this sphere was slow to make itself felt — it brought on the author accusations even from within his order — but it was highly esteemed by his pupils and far-seeing friends (e.g., H. Valois,Huet, etc.).

To form an opinion of Pétau's work it is necessary to go back to the period in which he wrote. It is far from being perfect and his criticism is more than once at fault. But his merit increases in spite of his shortcomings, when it is remembered that he had at hand only very imperfect editions of the Fathers, all inferior to the great masterpieces of the Benedictines; that many of the known texts only existed in translations, or in late and poorly studied manuscripts; that his predecessors in this line were few and practically everything had to be created. What he wanted had already been outlined by Melchior Cano in his work "De locis theologicis". Here we pass from theory to practice and we find a master at once. The originality of Pétau's work has been questioned; it may have been inspired, it is said, by a similar treatise of Oregius (died 1635), as Zöckler maintains, or by the "Confessio catholica" of John Gerhard (died 1627), as conjectured by Eckstein. But the "Confessio catholica" has a quite different aim, as is stated on the very first page; whole treatises, as for instance that onChrist, have but scanty quotations from three or four Fathers of the Church, and present nothing similar to the long historical developments of the sixteen books "De Incarnation, Verbi" of Pétau. The relationship with Cardinal Aug. Oregius, which rests solely on a conversation of a religious of the Minims of Dijon related in the "Voyage littéraire de deux bénédictins" (Paris, 1717, p. 147), has been examined in detail and completely disposed of by F.Oudin, S.J. in the "Mémoires de Trévoux" (July, 1718, pp. 109-33).

The state of religious strife during the days succeeding the Council of Trent drew all minds towards the primitive ages of the Church concerning which certain ancient documents were being discovered, while the excessive subtlety of many Scholastics of the decadence instigated a return towards positive sources. Pétau was no doubt inspired by the same ideas, but the execution of the work is completely his own. His aim and purpose are set forth by his dedicatory letter to the General of the Jesuits (Epist., III, liv), and in several parts of his "Prolegomena" (cf. I, i). His method reveals all the resources which the sciences of history. and philosophy have furnished to the theologians. He declares his opinion with full liberty as, e.g., concerning the opinion of St. Augustine on the problem of predestination, or the ideas on the Trinity of the ante-Nicene writers. Even for those who do not follow his historical plan the work has furnished a copious supply of documents; for theologians it has been a store of patristic arguments. We may here add that Pétau, like Cano, took the greatest pains with his literary style. He exaggerates the faults of Scholasticism; but on the other hand he defends it against the accusations of Erasmus. We still find the controversialist in the author of the "Dogmata"; after giving the history of each dogma, he adds the refutation of new errors. In his polemical writings his style was bitter; here and there he is more gentle, as when engaged in discussions with Grotius, who was drawing near the Catholic Faith. The memory of Pétau was celebrated the day after his death by Henri Valois, one of his best pupils, and by L. Allatius in a Greek poem composed at the request of Cardinal Barberini.

[Anonymous]

http://www.manresa-sj.org/stamps/1_Petau.htm

The above stamp pictures and makes primary reference to Baron Jurij Vega and it includes part of the Moon's surface with the Vega crater named for him. But also on the moon are the names of four other persons for whom lunar craters were named, among them two Jesuits: Fr. Denis Pétau, SJ (Dionysius Petavius) well known French theologian (1583-1652)

got himself a moon crater just like Scaliger

[Anonymous]

from the way back machine

http://web.archive.org/web/200706121227 ... esuit.html

DID A JESUIT PRIEST CARVE A NEW HISTORY?
Our Entire History was revised, the Chronology is all wrong, but who really cares? I DO!.
John V Panella

There is only one tiny slight problem, one little detail that the nasty little devil got his grubby hands into. That one tiny remote little tidbit was, why would anyone in ancient Persia living during the supposed classical age inscribe any date with BC (BC-Before Christ or BCE Before Common Era or Christian era) on it?

It was not until the alleged 6th Century AD when Dionysus Exegesis (470-544) a Scythian Monk created this dating system to figure out the dates of Easter. And it was also Exegesis, known as Denis the little, that he somehow came up with the time period of when Jesus Christ existed, supposedly 500-550 years earlier.

And what is even more strange that this dating never really went into effect until the 8th century where a man named Bede (a Benedictine Monk) began to use this new dating system and then began to count backwards using Exegesis formula to go back to Christ and then created the BC time period!

So although it must have been a great day for all of these archaeologist's to discover this ancient Stele with the actual date inscribed on it, it had to dawn on them that it was a fraud. That no dating prior to the 8th century AD at best, could have been inscribed with the dates BC on it.

Once again though we find ourselves asking the big question about the time changers and what was their real goal. Dionysus Exegesis is another one of those individuals that one has to wonder was he a phantom creation of a later time changer.

When last I was speaking about Joseph Scaliger how he had become the Father to our known and accepted Chronology, I have written about how he was linked to none other than the famed 17th Century Dionysus Petavius, which strangely also means, (Dennis the Little). Exegesis is the Latin form of Little and Petavius is the French form, coming from the French word 'petite', meaning small!

The French Jesuit Petavius was alive during 1583-1652. He was also close friends with none other than Joseph Julius Scaliger. In fact Petavius carried on the chronological work after Scaliger died. Both these men as I have stated, studied together in Paris.

The reason I began this article like I did was to reveal how easily we accept certain so called facts when in truth they may be a gigantic fraud.

One of the most important books of our day is a series of Chronological works written by Anatoly Fomenko. Although greatly debated by some in the scientific world, his series of works has literally set the world on edge, and it has become one of my favorite all-time reads!

I was already detecting in my studies long before I read Fomenko that our accepted chronology had serious problems. But when I found his work, it did not take me long to see exactly what had taken place. He did a remarkable job using absolute science to reveal that we have been snaked by the sinister shakers and movers of our world.

Fomenko brought out that the Famed Jesus Christ based on his findings did not live anytime close to the 1st century AD. In fact when he began to go over the date along with the vehicle used in the Middle Ages to trace back time, which was Astronomy and Astrology, he discovered that the real Jesus was alive during the 11th century. In fact he precisely dated his birth to around 1053AD and his death to 1086 AD.

Now this is why Dionysus Exegesis is an interesting find in history. Because he was the one that somehow was able to date when Jesus Christ was on this earth during the so called Dark Ages. But we learned earlier that the Dark Ages created by the famed Petrarch may have never existed.

His dating put Jesus back about 500-550 years before his own life. This placed Jesus back into a specific period of time and then later it was adopted that Jesus began the new era, or Anno Domini which meant the year of our Lord.

However the similarity once again between Exegesis and Petavius warrants our attention. Because with the finding of Fomenko, if one was to subtract 500-550 years from Petavius (1583-1652) one would realize it would also bring the time frame back to around the 11th Century which correlates beautifully with Fomenko's findings.

The question I have since so many of these apparent time changers from the Middle Ages were deeply entrenched with Christianity, is did these time changers all know this truth. Is this part of what was being hidden from mankind, that Jesus in fact did exist, but at another time and in another country.

And the Roman Empire simply grabbed this history as their own and made the necessary changes in it to make Jesus their Christain head. Was this the real war between the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Empire. The Eastern Orthodox was the Greek ROME. Was Jesus Christ theirs???

And yet I wonder why they were not smart enough to change his obvious Greek name, Iesus Christos to either a Roman or Jewish name since this is their claim of him! Of course does it really matter of the identity of Jesus, if he existed here or there, it would still be the teachings he brought that identified him not where he belonged to or what Bloodline he was from!

So the question is, Was Exegesis a Phantom creation of Petavius? Both men were named Denis the Little. Both were playing around with our Historical chronology. One was a Monk the other a French Jesuit Theologian. Both were hip deep in similar religious matters.

And strangely enough Exegesis created the AD BC dating which conveniently falls right into Scaliger and Petavius' chronology system of dating.

I have long wondered if Scaliger and Petavius set the standards for our historical review, then what formula was used to extract dates of old, when we were told Monks during the Middle Ages had supposedly ancient documents that were dated and they recopied them for posterity? However we have nothing original, we only have the copies. But my question is, how did the Monks date the copies? And with what dating system did they use?

If anything existed prior to the 8th century in their findings, then what was used as the dating method if these materials were dated. And if they were dated how did the Monks correlate the date with the new dating system? Even today with all of our technology which is suspect at best concerning dating old objects, we cannot come up with precise dating. So how did the Monks before technology prior to Scaliger and Petavius know how old any material they had in their possession really was, unless they were dated, but with what DATE?

They certainly could not properly date anything especially when the calendars and dating system was changed beyond the space of the supposed findings. And if they did find ancient material such as an old papyrus of the Bible, that could not have been dated with a AD or BC date, and if it was it would prove that it was much younger than previously thought or simply a fraud for our time.

We have been relying on Monks for a very long time via the message that was passed down that they had originals of ancient writings and we have bought into that with a fervor. The fact is these Monks could not have known how old anything was that they had unless it was dated. And if it was dated, how did they know to adapt the old date with the new dating system that came along hundreds of years later?

And the fact is we do not have anything that the Monks claimed they had except their copies they made in which they claim it was of such and such a year in the past and usually used AD or BC dating which we know now could not be authentic. And as for new findings and discoveries like the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Nag Hammadi Library etc... We have relied upon Carbon 14 dating as well as limited amounts of Paleography, which is the supposed ability to use handwriting in the attempt to trace the date back to a period of time.

But all of this is suspect because without a code key, a real piece or shred of evidence, no one could properly trace anything back! And even with the supposed evidence, unless that is verified it is also suspect.

And Carbon 14 dating after a certain period of time in my opinion is absolutely worthless. There is no validity or proof in carbon 14 dating. It is suspect to archaeological opinion and bribes.

The fact is our entire Chronology is suspect because we have been holding to high esteem a few people in the Middle Ages that were history, language and science experts. But we don't seem to care if they might have had an agenda with such magnificent traits and abiities.

And for anyone to believe that they had no agenda does not know history in the first place. Most of these men were wrapped tightly in the church. Everything they did was based on their religious beliefs. And to ever believe that a certain religious dogma does not influence agendas and ideas, is ridiculous.

In fact Dionysus Petavius work far surpassed even that of Joseph Scaliger and his greatest work was called "De theologicis dogmatibus" it was an attempt to use Christian Dogma to influence history. He became known as the father of History of Dogma!

One has to wonder what that could possibly mean other than he was creating history according to Christian Dogma. And what I find incredibly odd and very interesting is that he was also known for preparing the ground works for the Benedictines, which just so happened to be the affiliation for the Monk named Bede, that supposedly existed nearly 1000 years earlier and who was directly responsible for implementing the Exegesis, AD BC dating standard. It is like they are all one big happy family!