Debating with a JW about St. Jerome

[greenhope]

Hi, I am a discussion with a JW who has given me a quote about St. Jerome that they say indicates that St. Jerome rejects the deuterocanonical books as being apocryphal. I could really use some help refuting these as somehow indicating St. Jerome rejected the deuterocanonical works.

“Jerome, who is described as “the best Hebrew scholar” of the early church and who completed the Latin Vulgate in 405 C.E., took a definite stand against such Apocryphal books and was the first, in fact, to use the word “Apocrypha” explicitly in the sense of noncanonical as referring to these writings. Thus, in his prologue to the books of Samuel and Kings, Jerome lists the inspired books of the Hebrew Scriptures in harmony with the Hebrew canon (in which the 39 books are grouped as 22) and then says: “Thus there are twenty-two books . . . This prologue of the Scriptures can serve as a fortified approach to all the books which we translate from the Hebrew into Latin; so that we may know that whatever is beyond these must be put in the apocrypha.” In writing to a lady named Laeta on the education of her daughter, Jerome counseled: “Let her avoid all the apocryphal books, and if she ever wishes to read them, not for the truth of their doctrines but out of respect for their wondrous tales, let her realize that they are not really written by those to whom they are ascribed, that there are many faulty elements in them, and that it requires great skill to look for gold in mud.”—Select Letters, CVII.” from the Jehovah Witness work called “Apocrypha”

In addition, I would like a recommendation of something to give back to him. I do not want to be in a place where he is giving me these quotes that I have to dissect and am not giving him the same thing. I am think one of the Tract from Catholic answers about how we have the Scriptures. Ideas are greatly appreciated. Thanks.

 

[po18guy]

Jerome did indeed have the opinion that the books were not inspired. However, he was obedient to the Church and translated them anyhow. The typical anti-Catholic tactic is to praise those who differed with the Magisterium. Jerome remained faithful and obedient - that’s why he is a Saint. As well, Jerome is one voice, and he was neither Pope, nor a one-man council. But, the JWs are big on one man’s opinion.

A much better person to talk about is Charles Taze Russell. What about his qualifications to interpret the bible? None. What about his authority to prophesy? None. What about the peculiar JW beliefs that he concocted? Thin air. What about his prophecies? 100% false. Their entire faith is based on the opinion of one man in all of human history. One.

Hammer them on their 100% record of failed prophesies. A failed prophecy points to a single source: a false prophet. Make your conversion to JW contingent upon one of their prophecies coming true. That will be the day.

 

[Mintaka]

Actually, the “apocryphal writings” in that particular letter of Jerome’s are not likely to be the Bible books, but rather the stuff that people called “apocrypha” back then – all the “Gospel of Randomguy”, “Acts of Randomguy” sort of stuff that was swimming around. He explicitly says that she would want to read them “because of the miracles contained in them”, which is not something you see a lot of, in the Biblical books that Protestant people call “apocryphal.” Whereas, the actual apocrypha, the Bible fanfics from out in the desert or in Irish manuscripts about Joseph of Arimathea, are full of talking dogs and the resurrections of dried sardines.

Jerome goes from talking about “concentrate on the historical books of the Bible” to “don’t let her read Song of Songs”, and then the apocryphal writings, and then he’s on about “let her read tons of Cyprian and Athanasius and Hilary of Poitiers”. So again, this doesn’t sound like he’s writing about normal Bible stuff, but about “The Acts of Paul and Thecla”, and that sort of thing. (Not the heretical apocryphal writings, apparently, because he’s not worried about the doctrine being bad. He must mean “the sort of apocryphal books you and your friends have got in the house for light reading, Laeta.”)

The other point is that it’s not just talking about any kid, but a girl who was vowed to God by her parents before she was born. Jerome is talking about training a kid who’s going to be a vowed virgin all her life. (Hence his idea that she shouldn’t read Songs until she’s read pretty much all the rest of the Bible, so she’ll understand the metaphors and not get stirred up to think about boys and boobs.)

So if your JW buddy is a JW nun who was raised never to leave the house except for church and never to be able to live alone, he should pay full attention to Jerome’s advice.

Here’s the actual full text of the letter to Laeta. It’s full of Jerome opinionatedness, but it also has the lovely comment about living as a family with her pagan grandfather.

Everything in this post that’s in quotemarks is a paraphrase, not a quote. So go to the source and use that.

 

[Mintaka]

Here’s a Protestant source for your JW buddy, on what “apocryphal” meant, back in the day. It mentions the letter and allows as how it might mean what your buddy says, but they surround this statement with evidence that nobody was yet used to using it in that sense, and that Jerome was known in other letters not to have used it in that sense. The closest it came to being applied to Scripture was 3 Esdras (3 Ezra), which is considered Scripture by some over on the Eastern side of things.

It only started showing up applied to actual Scripture, when folks over in the Palestinian/Syrian area started arguing more for the more Masoretic-ish text tradition, and thus started insulting the Septuagint tradition’s books. Jerome kinda got into this, because he moved to Bethlehem and got very influenced by the local Christians and Jews’ side of the dispute. But it’s not clear that he was going on about this to Laeta; he did write for his specific audience of a normal educated Christian woman, and he didn’t go so far as to list what he meant. So it’s likely that he meant the general reader meaning, and not the technical one; or we would have read more argument and more exact proscription.

But I think a lot of Protestants like (or used to like) to use this quote as if “miracles” were against Judith and Tobit, so your JW friend is at least not completely out of the realm of mainstream thought.

 

[Mintaka]

Um… Jerome’s quite a bit stronger in the original than in the translations. He’s not talking about any kind of Bible book. Sheesh.

Caveat omnia apocrypha et, si quando ea non ad dogmatum veritatem, sed ad signorum reverentiam legere voluerit, sciat non eorum esse, quorum titulis praenotantur, multaque his admixta vitiosa et grandis esse prudentiae aurum in luto quaerere.

Let her beware all apocrypha; so long as she but wishes to read such things for reverence toward signs [ie, miracles] and not for truth of dogma, may she know them not to be what they are written on their title labels [the tags on scrolls]. And many are mixed full of vice; and to find gold in mud, one’s prudence must be great.

He goes on to say:
Let her always have Cyprian’s little works in her hand. She may race uninterruptedly through Athanasius’ letters and Hilarius’ books without stubbing her foot. She may enjoy such tracts of such [good] characters, in whose books piety of faith may not totter. Let her read the rest in another way, for she may better judge [them] than follow after.

Jerome, on the worst and crankiest day of his life, never accused Tobit and Judith of being vicious books spreading immorality. He loved Tobit. He loved Tobit’s DOG, for goodness’ sake.

This is talking about Bible fanfic apocrypha, which (like Hollywood Bible flicks) usually decide that the Apostles and disciples need to face naked dancing women, or that wicked skeptical midwives should be closely examining the Virgin Mary’s wingwang.

 

[ahs]

This is a lengthy read, but very well worth it if you want to defend the OT canon. Yes, there were disputes about it, but the Church in Rome finalized the OT Canon in 382 (officially…the use of what we call our OT can be traced back to the end of the Apostolic generation). The difference between our OT and the Protestant OT is ours if from the Hellenist Jews, and the Protestants reverted back to the Hebrew Jews’ Bible.

newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm

Yes, Jerome disputed it. That doesn’t prove anything though. He was obedient to the Church and submitted to Her Authority.

And if the JW is trying to use this to justify that his/her religion is the “right” one…well…study this link:

catholic.com/tracts/stumpers-for-the-jehovahs-witnesses

 

[Mintaka]

Jerome’s prologues to various Vulgate books are available in full online. He didn’t write prefaces for every book. But if you go to the links below and press the “Table of Contents” link, you’ll see all that he did write.

Jerome introducing the Book of Judith:

“Receive the widow Judith, example of chastity, and with triumphant praise acclaim her with eternal public celebration. For not only for women, but even for men, she has been given as a model by the one who rewards her chastity, who has ascribed to her such virtue that she conquered the unconquered among humanity, and surmounted the insurmountable.”

He does not call her book “full of vice.” He doesn’t say that it’s lacking in “truth of dogma.” He just wondered whether or not it should count as part of the Bible, and went with the Church’s teaching on the matter.

Another translation by a translator who doesn’t even use the word “Apocrypha.”

Jerome’s introduction to Tobit.

Jerome’s introduction to Ezra and Nehemiah, where he complains a lot about the ingratitude of readers and critics. He does this a lot in his prefaces.

 

[Nicea325]

Hi, I am a discussion with a JW who has given me a quote about St. Jerome that they say indicates that St. Jerome rejects the deuterocanonical books as being apocryphal. I could really use some help refuting these as somehow indicating St. Jerome rejected the deuterocanonical works.

“Jerome, who is described as “the best Hebrew scholar” of the early church and who completed the Latin Vulgate in 405 C.E., took a definite stand against such Apocryphal books and was the first, in fact, to use the word “Apocrypha” explicitly in the sense of noncanonical as referring to these writings. Thus, in his prologue to the books of Samuel and Kings, Jerome lists the inspired books of the Hebrew Scriptures in harmony with the Hebrew canon (in which the 39 books are grouped as 22) and then says: “Thus there are twenty-two books . . . This prologue of the Scriptures can serve as a fortified approach to all the books which we translate from the Hebrew into Latin; so that we may know that whatever is beyond these must be put in the apocrypha.” In writing to a lady named Laeta on the education of her daughter, Jerome counseled: “Let her avoid all the apocryphal books, and if she ever wishes to read them, not for the truth of their doctrines but out of respect for their wondrous tales, let her realize that they are not really written by those to whom they are ascribed, that there are many faulty elements in them, and that it requires great skill to look for gold in mud.”—Select Letters, CVII.” from the Jehovah Witness work called “Apocrypha”

In addition, I would like a recommendation of something to give back to him. I do not want to be in a place where he is giving me these quotes that I have to dissect and am not giving him the same thing. I am think one of the Tract from Catholic answers about how we have the Scriptures. Ideas are greatly appreciated. Thanks.

Yeah and the JW is merely using ONE person as a concrete evidence that all of Christianity rejected the 7 books? Far cry from the Truth.No. Jerome had an opinion,but like a good Christian,he submitted his will to the will of the Church unlike many who push for their own agendas. Likewise, Jerome did not speak for the entire church nor was he the only infallible source. The whole Jerome argument is weak because at the end, he included them, thus so much for his opinion.

 

[COPLAND_3]

Some non-catholics will use things like that to try to play “gottcha,” but no need to be troubled by St. Jerome’s preception on the Deuters. Jerome had a flawed preception about the Hebrew text thinking it was the “original Hebrew” when in fact the Hebrew text he had was a Pharisee revision. Had he had manuscripts like the Dead Sea Scrolls to see that the Septuagint was for the most part a faithful translation of a much older Hebrew and Aramaic manuscripts than the Hebrew text he was using, then Jerome would have probably had a different outlook on what he thought about the Hebrew Bible.

But fortunately we have the Church which has handed down to us the canon! The Fathers of the Church are witnesses to our Catholic faith, but they are not infallible in all their service.

 

[T_More]

Some great responses. I would only add to ask the JW ( I was one for about 25 years) if they accept the canon of the NT? Why is it okay to assent to the Church’s canonization of the NT and accept it without question, but not accept the canon of the OT as decided upon by the Church? Is it a case of the the Church being “only a little led by the Holy Spirit”, but not fully because they got the OT wrong? How do you know?

I would emphasize the Gnostic “gospels” as well and ask how we know that they shoudn’t be included in the NT canon.

It all boils down to one thing in apologetics. Who has the authority as given to them by Jesus Christ.

 

[COPLAND_3]

Some great responses. I would only add to ask the JW ( I was one for about 25 years) if they accept the canon of the NT? Why is it okay to assent to the Church’s canonization of the NT and accept it without question, but not accept the canon of the OT as decided upon by the Church? Is it a case of the the Church being “only a little led by the Holy Spirit”, but not fully because they got the OT wrong? How do you know?

I would emphasize the Gnostic “gospels” as well and ask how we know that they shoudn’t be included in the NT canon.

It all boils down to one thing in apologetics. Who has the authority as given to them by Jesus Christ.

Very good!

 

[gus]

Protestants love to quote St Jerome. on canon but conviently forget he is the most avid defender of the Perpetial virginity of Mary

 

[reslight]

Jerome did indeed have the opinion that the books were not inspired. However, he was obedient to the Church and translated them anyhow. The typical anti-Catholic tactic is to praise those who differed with the Magisterium. Jerome remained faithful and obedient - that’s why he is a Saint. As well, Jerome is one voice, and he was neither Pope, nor a one-man council. But, the JWs are big on one man’s opinion.

A much better person to talk about is Charles Taze Russell. What about his qualifications to interpret the bible? None.

I am not with the JWs, nor do I seek to defend the JW organization doctrine and belief system. Russell, however, also was not with the JWs, and did not believe in such an organization. Nevertheless, I am a Bible Student, as was Charles Taze Russell.

Although Russell did not have formal degrees and titles of men, Russell was a very well educated man, and had been trained by several ministers before he set out on his own in 1879. In his youth, he had been instructed by private tutors. In 1879, he had already about nine years of ministerial training from other ministers, which he alludes to in the Supplement to the first issue of his Watch Tower magazine.

What about his authority to prophesy? None.

Russell never “prophesied,” and never claimed any authority to prophesy.

What about the peculiar JW beliefs that he concocted? Thin air.

Russell did not concoct the beliefs that are peculiar to the JWs. The beliefs peculiar to the JWs actually come from Joseph Rutherford. When Rutherford created the JW religion, Rutherford did keep some of what he had learned from Russell, but on many things Rutherford’s new JW “organization” gospel was almost the opposite of what Russell taught; indeed, Russell preached against such sectarianism and authoritarianism as is found in the JW organization. Russell certainly never believed in their “good news” of bad tidings for most of the people of all nations that they and their children will be eternally destroyed in Armageddon if they do not join with an organization alleged to be “Jehovah’s organization”.

The JWs reject Russell’s central teaching on the “ransom for all” and have replaced that teaching with a message that basically stated: “Join us or be eternally destroyed.” This Russell did not teach; indeed, the JWs teach almost the very opposite of what Russell taught on this (as well as many other things).

What about his prophecies? 100% false.

Russell never gave any prophecies, so there were no prophecies to be false. Russell was a student of Bible prophecy; he never claimed to be a prophet, and plainly stated that he was NOT a prophet, and that his conclusions on Bible prophecy were NOT infallible. Unlike the JW leadership, Russell allowed differing views (especially on chronology and prophecy) and even presented views in the pages of the WT that differed from his own.

Nevertheless, many Bible Students, myself included, do belief that his expectation (from 1904 onward) that the time of trouble (Armageddon) was to begin in 1914 was correct. Russell died in 1916 still believing that his expectation had been proven correct, that is, that the “time of trouble” – Armageddon – had indeed begun in 1914.

Their entire faith is based on the opinion of one man in all of human history. One.

This is obviously false, since the JWs preach a message that is almost the opposite of what Russell preached.

Hammer them on their 100% record of failed prophesies. A failed prophecy points to a single source: a false prophet. Make your conversion to JW contingent upon one of their prophecies coming true. That will be the day.

The JW leadership tries to have it both ways; that is, they claim that as a whole, their “anointed remnant” whom they claim to be the faithful and discreet slave is a prophet, and at the same time they deny that they are prophesying. I remember reading some years ago in one of their publications that they were claiming that Russell and the “Board of Directors” of the WTS in Russell’s time were the “governing body” of “Jehovah’s organization”. This is totally false! Russell preached against such a “governing body”!!! Indeed, if the Board of Directors had been “the governing body” then Rutherford would not have been able to dismiss the majority of the Board of Directors based on his legal trickery. At any rate, I have read and heard many historical claims made by the JWs and their leadership that I know are very deceptive, to say the least. I would say that the majority of the JWs THINK they know a lot about Russell, when actually they have a lot of misconceptions of who he was and what he taught.

My site on Charles Taze Russell:
ctr.reslight.net

My site on the Jehovah’s Witnesses:
jws.reslight.net

My site on the Bible Students
bstudents.reslight.net

 

[gus]

Protestants love to quote St Jerome. on canon but conviently forget he is the most avid defender of the Perpetial virginity of Mary

 

[po18guy]

I am not with the JWs, nor do I seek to defend the JW organization doctrine and belief system.

You know an absolutely stunning amount about a secretive organization which you “do I seek to defend” Amazing. I’m shocked. Stupefied. Incredulous. Suspicious.

Of course, it is mere coincidence that you show up on JW threads and defend them without defending them.

 

[po18guy]

Russell never “prophesied,” and never claimed any authority to prophesy.

OK. Then all of his “-]prophesies/-]” “expectations” were wrong.

Russell did not concoct the beliefs that are peculiar to the JWs.

Better read up on him again. According to Wiki, he “disputed many of the creeds, doctrines, and traditions of mainstream Christianity including immortality of the soul, hellfire, predestination, the fleshly return of Jesus Christ, the Trinity, and the burning up of the world”. These major errors all began with him.

Russell never gave any prophecies, so there were no prophecies to be false.

So, just who -]predicted/-] “expected” the world’s end in 1914? OK, he was a false “expectator” then.

Russell was a student of Bible prophecy; he never claimed to be a prophet, and plainly stated that he was NOT a prophet

Man, do we ever have proof of this! What proof? The year 1915, for starters. No, I will agree that he was no prophet, but he certainly was “expectant.” Nevertheless, he was 100% wrong on doctrine, 100% wrong on “expectations” and produced nothing but a schism factory in his original group.
Sadly, all of his study was for naught, because he was not guided in studying bible prophecy under the Catholic Church, which produced the bible. I’ll bet even your censored/edited bible has 2 Peter 1:20.

Nevertheless, many Bible Students, myself included, do belief that his expectation (from 1904 onward) that the time of trouble (Armageddon) was to begin in 1914 was correct.

OK. Play with words if you must. His “expectations” were 100% wrong. Oh, wait! Jesus is invisible! Frankly, this sounds more like Charles Harold Taze Camping Russell.

I mean no offense, but anyone who studies the bible apart from the authority of the Catholic Church is going to be lead astray. Or, they are ignorant and unstable. You choose.

 

[greenhope]

Wow!! I was very nervous about posting this. I felt bad for coming to you all and asking, but I won’t have that problem anymore. You are all awesome!!

I had figured that St. Jerome may have had concerns about the Greek Texts, but as so many of you pointed out he was obedient to the Church.

Thank you for all the references and other source documents. It will help with the discussions.

@Copland 3 - I think I will take your advise and try to lead the conversation to a “hey you accept the NT as determined by the Church, but not the OT” Then work on sources from OT and NT on the Church being the "pillar and foundation of truth” (1 Tim. 3:15)

I hope that I can return the favor!