Actually St. Jerome favoured translating from the Hebrew Text, not using the Hebrew Canon. There is a major difference between these two concepts.
He did both. This is from a Catholic source, so of course it’s biased and includes pejorative commentary along the way. But it does tell you what Jerome did.
“St. Jerome cast his weighty suffrage on the side unfavourable to the disputed books. In appreciating his attitude we must remember that Jerome lived long in Palestine, in an environment where everything outside the Jewish Canon was suspect, and that, moreover, he had an excessive veneration for the Hebrew text…”
Disingenuous Commentary, Exhibit A. Perhaps his veneration of the Hebrew text was just right, and perhaps his residence in and around the place from whence the Scripture in question
actually came from was helpful rather than harmful to his outlook on the topic. Oh, and his suffrage was not as weighty as it probably should have been- based on his expertise and the quality of his work (as compared to his contemporaries, anyway), he should have had more influence than he did. He had less influence for reasons that aren’t all that valid, and these things were entirely beyond his control. Moving on, though.
“…the Hebraica veritas as he called it. In his famous “Prologus Galeatus”, or Preface to his translation of Samuel and Kings, he declares that everything not Hebrew should be classed with the apocrypha, and explicitly says that Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Tobias, and Judith are not on the Canon.”
Here’s a bit of my own biased commentary: Boom, baby! What was it you said earlier? I think it was something like this:
“Actually St. Jerome favoured translating from the Hebrew Text, not using the Hebrew Canon.”
And here’s what actually happened.
“In his famous “Prologus Galeatus”, or Preface to his translation of Samuel and Kings, he declares that everything not Hebrew should be classed with the apocrypha, and explicitly says that Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Tobias, and Judith are not on the Canon.”
Again: Boom! Oh, and here’s a more direct source pertaining to the Pro. Gal.
ewtn.com/library/PATRISTC/PII6-17.TXT Look a little less than halfway down, or just search for the text “not in the canon.” Now back to the source.
“These books, he adds, are read in the churches for the edification of the people, and not for the confirmation of revealed doctrine. An analysis of Jerome’s expressions on the deuterocanonicals, in various letters and prefaces, yields the following results: first, he strongly doubted their inspiration; secondly, the fact that he occasionally quotes them, and translated some of them as a concession to ecclesiastical tradition, is an involuntary testimony on his part to the high standing these writings enjoyed in the Church at large, and to the strength of the practical tradition which prescribed their readings in public worship. Obviously, the inferior rank to which the deuteros were relegated by authorities like Origen, Athanasius, and Jerome, was due to too rigid a conception of canonicity…”
Disingenuous Commentary, Exhibit B. Maybe their conception of canonicity had just the right amount of rigidity. That’s one possibility. It was more rigidity than Rome wound up settling on centuries later…but nothing more than that.
And…we’re back.
“…one demanding that a book, to be entitled to this supreme dignity, must be received by all, must have the sanction of Jewish antiquity, and must moreover be adapted not only to edification, but also to the “confirmation of the doctrine of the Church”, to borrow Jerome’s phrase.”
That’s about all. Oh yeah, here’s the source.
newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm Look for the section entitled “The canon of the Old Testament during the fourth, and first half of the fifth, century.”
All of this is rather off topic, of course, and I’m still not entirely sure why the Catholic Church has fewer books in their OT canon than the Orthodox Church does. But I do hope this clears up a few things about Jerome.
I also hope some of you will take a look at this portion of the Catholic Encyclopedia and become a little more familiar with the development of the canon throughout history in different parts of the world. It’s not nearly as simplistic as everyone so far has made it out to be.
Again, though, this is somewhat related but still kind of off topic. This thread isn’t supposed to be all about me. Or Jerome. Or Protestants. It’s supposed to be about why the Catholic canon and the Orthodox canon both use the Septuagint as their “vehicle” for getting books into their canons that aren’t in the Hebrew canon…yet they come up with a different number of books, and the Catholic canon doesn’t have as many. I’m glad about the opportunity to take a look at Trent and see what the provisions are for groups like the Greek Catholic Church in expanding their canon a bit, but I’m still looking for reasons as to why the 72-book canon excludes some parts of the anagignoskomena, as it was called at the time.
Any Orthodox (or anyone else) out there who can help me out with detailed information on the development of your canon? That’d be great. Thanks!
