Phil Vaz cites the following:
“As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it also read these two volumes (Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus) for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church…I say this to show you how hard it is to master the book of Daniel, which in Hebrew contains neither the history of Susanna, nor the hymn of the three youths, nor the fables of Bel and the Dragon…” (Schaff/Wace NPNF, Volume VI, Jerome, Prefaces to Jerome’s Works, pp. 492-493)
Jerome isn’t distinguishing Wisdom and Sirach from the other books, but
paralleling them. Note:
As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees,
but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so
let it also read these two volumes (Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus) for the edification of the people,
not to give authority to doctrines of the Church…
The fact that these books cannot be used to give “authority to the doctrines of the Church” is but further evidence that he didn’t regard them as inspired Scripture. I don’t see how anyone can bypass what is so clear. With this in mind, an isolated reference from Sirach….
“Does not the Scripture say: ‘Burden not thyself above thy power’ [Sirach 13:2]…” (Jerome, To Eustochium, Epistle 108, in NPNF2, VI:207)
…cannot be used as evidence of Jerome’s later acceptance of the deuterocanonicals, let alone Sirach. The book was regarded ecclesiastically, for edificatory purposes, and nothing more (as noted in the above citation). Jerome never attributed divine inspiration to the book.
You also cite:
“Do not, my dearest brother, estimate my worth by the number of my years. Gray hairs are not wisdom; it is wisdom which is as good as gray hairs At least that is what Solomon says: 'wisdom is the gray hair unto men.’ [Wisdom 4:9]” Moses too in choosing the seventy elders is told to take those whom he knows to be elders indeed, and to select them not for their years but for their discretion (Numbers 11:16) ? And, as a boy, Daniel judges old men and in the flower of youth condemns the incontinence of age (Daniel 13:55-59, or Story of Susannah 55-59, only found in Catholic Bibles) Jerome, To Paulinus, Epistle 58, in NPNF2, VI:119)
The references from Wisdom and Susannah aren’t evidence that Jerome quoted them as “inspired” Scripture, but can be contrasted to Paul quoting Aratus, Menander, or Epimenedes for their wisdom. I’m sure Jerome quoted the wisdom
within the deuterocanonicals liberally, but quoting them doesn’t mean he accepted them as divine.
You also said:
Haven’t looked these up myself, I got the citations from Matt1618 page I linked above. What this all means, I’m not sure. But it seems that St. Jerome had no problem including the deuteros with his arguments from other “canonical” books, while at the same time noticing a distinction between them and the “canonical” OT which he calls strictly the hebrew canon (the 39 rather than the complete 46 books).
That’s good. At least you’re not sure what it means. Including these books with his arguments doesn’t mean anything regarding canonicity. You downplay the distinction considering the Hebrew canon which was his canon. As already noted, he denied the others inspiration.
You said:
St. Jerome is probably the best example Protestants use from the Fathers for “rejecting” the deuteros, yet he still cites them along with the hebrew OT, and says they should be read at Liturgy and for “edification.” That’s a fuller picture of his view.
Again, “citing” them along with the Hebrew OT, reading them at Liturgy and/or for edification doesn’t imply that Jerome accepted these books as “inspired” and, thus, “canon.” Unless you can find
concrete evidence that he accepted these books later in life, these citations don’t do much. The first (to Eustochium) is isolated; the second and third (To Paulinus and To Oceanus) doesn’t imply “inspired Scripture”; and the fourth (Preface to the books of Solomon) confirms that Wisdom and Sirach aren’t a part of the canonical Scriptures. I’m confused as to where you see the fuller picture.
Peace,
CM
. However, check out any scholarly Catholic resources on this matter to verify. If no luck, I’ll tend to this in the morning. One more thing though, there is ample evidence to show he didn’t accept these books, but I have yet to see anything to the contrary asides from some incontextual citations. Do you have anything to prove he did change his mind on this?
.