B
bamark
Guest
continued from Part 1
**So what did Jerome really think about the additional books of Susanna, the Three Children, and Bel and the Dragon? Jerome clearly stated in his preface to Daniel that these books were not found in the Hebrew. So what did he do with thim? Again, his preface to Daniel tells all: **
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; because, however, they are to be found everywhere, we have formed them into an appendix, prefixing to them an obelus, and thus making an end of them, so as not to seem to the uninformed to have cut off a large portion of the volume.
**Jerome formed these three additional books into an “appendix”. That means, in the Vulgate version these three books were separated from the book of Daniel and classed as “not essential” to the main work. In addition to this, he marked them with an “obelus,” indicating that these books were “suspected reading,” which explains why they were made into an “appendix”.
Furthermore, Jerome was dumbstruck as to why the churches even read from the Theodotion version, for in his reply to Rufinius he said:**
Still, I wonder that a man should read the version of Theodotion the heretic and judaizer, and should scorn that of a Christian, simple and sinful though he may be.
**Conisequently, there is absolutely no historical basis to claim that Jerome rejected the deuterocanonicals on account of his own personal opinion, and then later changed his mind about it to conform with the rest of the church. The truth is, on the basis of church authority Jerome rejected them altogether as canonical, and only included them in his version because they were so commonly read in the churches. Furthermore, whatever apocryphal books were included in Jerome’s Latin Vulgate were clearly separated from the inspired Scriptures and marked as suspected reading.
I really do wonder how it is that if these deuterocanonical books were truly accepted as canonical in the Roman church, why do Catholics have to lie about Jerome and pull his words out of context in order to prove their case? Why do they feel they have to revise history to substantiate their claim? I say, the reason is because history doesn’t support their claim. In fact, the rejection of the deuterocanonicals as being canonical in the church of Rome can even be found two centuries later with Gregory I. But of course, Catholicism has never really concerned itself with the facts.
I just thought I should post this so that others here who may not be as knowledgeable on this subject might see that there is a far different perspective–one more in tune with historical facts–than what the Cahtolic church presents **
The source of this persons refutation was:
theworkofgod.org/Bible/Sermons/SJerome.htm
I’ve debated this person before, and he’s very good at using the ECF’s when it defends his argument. I know there’s something in this that I’m missing, but I can’t see it.
(edit) I might also add that this - Apology against Rufinus" is also found in the New Advent - newadvent.org/fathers/2710.htm
Any help on this?
Mark
**So what did Jerome really think about the additional books of Susanna, the Three Children, and Bel and the Dragon? Jerome clearly stated in his preface to Daniel that these books were not found in the Hebrew. So what did he do with thim? Again, his preface to Daniel tells all: **
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; because, however, they are to be found everywhere, we have formed them into an appendix, prefixing to them an obelus, and thus making an end of them, so as not to seem to the uninformed to have cut off a large portion of the volume.
**Jerome formed these three additional books into an “appendix”. That means, in the Vulgate version these three books were separated from the book of Daniel and classed as “not essential” to the main work. In addition to this, he marked them with an “obelus,” indicating that these books were “suspected reading,” which explains why they were made into an “appendix”.
Furthermore, Jerome was dumbstruck as to why the churches even read from the Theodotion version, for in his reply to Rufinius he said:**
Still, I wonder that a man should read the version of Theodotion the heretic and judaizer, and should scorn that of a Christian, simple and sinful though he may be.
**Conisequently, there is absolutely no historical basis to claim that Jerome rejected the deuterocanonicals on account of his own personal opinion, and then later changed his mind about it to conform with the rest of the church. The truth is, on the basis of church authority Jerome rejected them altogether as canonical, and only included them in his version because they were so commonly read in the churches. Furthermore, whatever apocryphal books were included in Jerome’s Latin Vulgate were clearly separated from the inspired Scriptures and marked as suspected reading.
I really do wonder how it is that if these deuterocanonical books were truly accepted as canonical in the Roman church, why do Catholics have to lie about Jerome and pull his words out of context in order to prove their case? Why do they feel they have to revise history to substantiate their claim? I say, the reason is because history doesn’t support their claim. In fact, the rejection of the deuterocanonicals as being canonical in the church of Rome can even be found two centuries later with Gregory I. But of course, Catholicism has never really concerned itself with the facts.
I just thought I should post this so that others here who may not be as knowledgeable on this subject might see that there is a far different perspective–one more in tune with historical facts–than what the Cahtolic church presents **
The source of this persons refutation was:
theworkofgod.org/Bible/Sermons/SJerome.htm
I’ve debated this person before, and he’s very good at using the ECF’s when it defends his argument. I know there’s something in this that I’m missing, but I can’t see it.
(edit) I might also add that this - Apology against Rufinus" is also found in the New Advent - newadvent.org/fathers/2710.htm
Any help on this?
Mark
