Did Christ make a mistake He later regretted?

[Gabriel_of_12]

1. Jerome did not “transliterate the Septuagint”. He translated the Hebrew texts into Latin. He did not translate the Greek OT texts.
2. Luther’s opinions on the canon had nothing to do with his excommunication.

I tell you what? I will review my resources on the Vulgate, You dont have to take my word for it, I will give you sources who disagree with you. On another note, we may not be on the same page on some technicallity?

No Luthers opinions on the canon does not excommunicate him. His actions did, of seperating himself from the apostolic Tradition, and removed 7 books from the bible, and added the word “alone” among his changes of apostolic defined doctrine.

Peace be with you

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

1. Jerome did not “transliterate the Septuagint”. He translated the Hebrew texts into Latin. He did not translate the Greek OT texts.

**I find it more challenging when Roman Catholics have opposing views, and later find out our opposition rests on technicallities not belief.

St. Jerome knew some Aramaic,Hebrew, Old Latin, Greek languages.
We differ on the transliteration of the vulagate on techinicalities. For one I stated Jerome translated the Septuagint using Hebrew Mss. available to him into Latin. You disagree, To go into the technicallity of our opposing views has to do with detail.
and I think this would take us way off track, and I am prepared to take our opposing views of many many pages of information.

So I have found a resource that puts our opposing views to rest and qualifies them both as correct, only we become both wrong on technicallities and lost authors.

So I will just conclude with a brief statement, and calling your attention to "The New Jerome Biblical Commentary by Prentice Hall. Pgs 1100-1103. In it you will find Jerome inluding 5 of the Deutero’s that are already translated from The Septuagint Greek into the old Latin. Jerome because he argued to keep them out, so he just included them (not translate them) as per the Pope Damasus’s instruction. (there is a lot more one could add to this) what is confusing here is that Jerome translated other books and parts of books from the Greek, and Aramaic, which includes Tobit one of the Deutor’s parts of Esther, Jdt.,etc. I am going to be brief here because it can become very long descriptions on the pros and cons here. Tobit was translated by Jerome from the Aramaic, and Hebrew for Jdt.) I am going to close here with a summary because for time and subject contrstraints.

You have caused me to blow the dust off many books, that I have become overwhelmed coming across some of my unfinished personal research, thanks to you. I must yeild to your comment that St. Jerome transliterated the Hebrew texts into His Vulgate. This I never disagreed (see my post #18), what I did because of my past research and limited memory, added the septuagint was translated, but this can be an error on my part because, St. Jerome did not translate the Septuagint only parts of the Septuagint books, when he had no hebrew counterparts, and he used Aramaic tranlations translated into the Vulgate. So without going into to much description and detail. I will conclude we are both right, but on technicallities we are both wrong. So to comment in conversation it is more correct to say, St. Jerome transliterated the Hebrew bible into Latin, using Greek,(Septuagint) Aramaic and Old Latin translations into his vulgate. But who generally speaks like this?

It is common knowledge that St. Jerome translated the Vulgate, and included the 7 Deuterocanonical books at the discretion of Pope Damasus, and early church fathers who used them in their teachings and writings. Anything outside of this comment when coming across Learned minds such as yours Steadfast, becomes a matter of great discussion and debates on details, available sources (that do not exist anymore) and techinicallities.

I believe if we are to continue this dialogue, requires a new thread, I would hate to bore others about details, translations, and technicallities.

Peace be with you.**

 

[Lilyflower]

I like to reference this type of information as the hidden facts:

These different denominations all protest the one Holy Catholic apostolic church and her authority.

St Paul warns against this: ‘those who know God give us a hearing but those who do not know God, refuses us a hearing’. 1Jn 4:6

These different denominations, are different from one another, because they interpret the scriptures to fit their own ideologies, and cant agree on one faith one church one baptism one Lord, yes I mean one lord because they have many heretical and new invented interpretations of God, Jesus, Holy Spirit.

Every different protestant denomination and non catholic all were founded by either a man, woman or claiming to another angel. Please read Galatians 1:1-9

These founders all claim to have a hidden infallible interpretation of scripture.
These founders dont teach their communities the Truth that the bible comes from the Roman Catholic church, or just dont know the Truth that it does, not to mention they dont have a clue just protests against the Roman Catholic church trying to use the same bible, the Roman Catholic church gave us…

Jesus did not make a mistake, in establishing his church upon the Rock of Peter, because the Rock has outlived these protestant founders, and their teachings, becauset their teachings have since changed many times over since their inception from these protestant founders. The Roman Catholic church is the body of Jeus christ on earth while Jesus is the head in heaven. The Roman Cathoilc church does not change, because God cannot change. That is why Jesus built his church upon Rock Peter, our first Pope.Peace be with you

My emphasis

The Apostle John warns usthat there are many prophets who are wrongly inspired. 1 Jn 4: 1-2.

 

[Steadfast]

I would not call it common knowledge but rather a common assumption that he included them.

There isn’t any evidence at all that he did so and there is a remarkable difference in the quality and texture of the Latin translation of the OT Deuteros found in the Editio Vulgata.

Which leads the best scholarship to conclude that he did not actually translate them but that they were included later by other scholars using extant Old Latin texts.

Cite:

Jerome found that the Hebrew scriptures did not include the books of Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, I-II Maccabees and Baruch, all of which were in the common Greek translation. He had already prepared Latin texts of Tobit and Judith from Greek. However, Jerome now eliminated these books from his definitive edition of the Old Testament and he downgraded them as apocryphal. The word ‘apocrypha’ means the ‘hidden’ books, texts to be put aside from the official Bible. He similarly questioned the authenticity of some parts of other books, including Esther 10:4 to 16:24 and chapters 13 and 14 of Daniel. Jerome used the Hebrew texts as his standard , and rejected any parts of the Bible not found there. He partially rearranged the sequence of the books of the Old testament, to bring it in line, more or less, with the order of the Hebrew Bible.

Here then, follows the great irony of Jerome’s Latin Bible. The supreme value of Jerome’s scholarship as editor lay in his skill in assessing textual authenticity and in eliminating books and passages which he deemed inauthentic. Jerome produced a Bible which was a model of scholarly caution and care. His judgments still carry weight. However, throughout all periods, members of the Bible-reading public have always been reluctant to sacrifice any familiar passage of scripture in bouts of textual spring-cleaning, however justified. Any sacred text is more likely to accumulate additions than to lose parts which might be authentic. To incorporate passages of unproven authenticity always seems less fearsome than to risk eliminating what might be divine text.

Jerome’s Bible, pruned against the Hebrew original, proved too purified for public acceptance. At some early stage, as it came to be copied and recopied and as it entered the life of the Latin-speaking Church, all the rejected books and passages found their way back in again. The position becomes even worse. Jerome’s saintly bones would revolve in their reliquaries if they could have seen what happened next. Not only were the apocryphal texts reinstated into their old places, but the form in which they re-entered the Bible was none other that that of the archaic Old Latin, for Jerome had allowed them no other. Texts like Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, I-II Maccabees and others slipped back into Jerome’s edition, in exactly the wording of a translation so corrupt that it had inspired Pope Damasus to appoint Jerome in the first place. Good portions of the Old Latin survive for no other reason than that Jerome utterly excluded them.

From “The Book: A History of the Bible” by Christopher De Hamel, Phaidon Press Limited, 2001

Dr. Christopher de Hamel is a recognized authority in the field of ancient manuscripts. He is Gaylord Donnelley Fellow Librarian of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, UK.

His academic bona fides are as follows:

B.A. (Otago, New Zealand), D.Phil. (Oxon), Hon.Litt.D. (St. John’s Minnesota), Hon.Litt.D (Otago), F.S.A., F.R.Hist.S.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I would not call it common knowledge but rather a common assumption that he included them.

There isn’t any evidence at all that he did so and there is a remarkable difference in the quality and texture of the Latin translation of the OT Deuteros found in the Editio Vulgata.

Which leads the best scholarship to conclude that he did not actually translate them but that they were included later by other scholars using extant Old Latin texts.

Cite:

From “The Book: A History of the Bible” by Christopher De Hamel, Phaidon Press Limited, 2001

**First of all, I find some discrepencies in the commentary although I am not one, who can argue with your author.( For one he agrees with me, of what I found myself in error in above post, interesting about the latin texts, I disagree with him about Jerome translating books, which were already in Old Latin before Jerome, this can go on and on…) He seems to be of the opinion on what you have labeled best scholarship. To which from the very begining here, I am of a different opinion. My sources conflict with the commentaries opinons. I find him one sided, and not open to what the writings of the Popes, and early church fathers, and especially St. Jerome himself. Maybe he does not have access to these letters, or the originals do not exist as they once did to the Roman Catholic church, for these new scholary approaches.

I must conclude this thread is not about the pros and cons of St. Jerome’s Vulgate, I was hoping to find a more solid ground on this brief topic of St. Jerome. It appears our schools of thought is what is conflicting of what can only be opinions, depending on the source. I seem to leave more credibility to the Church theologians and Dr.s of the Church than I would others, when dealing with spiritual things that pertain to God. Thats my opinion.

Peace be with you Steadfast, one thing I am sure glad you are Roman Catholic.**

 

[redrosetea]

Christ is omniscient, how could He make a mistake?

If anyone made a mistake it was Luther