R
RedDeathsMask
Guest
A few months back, before the crash, Karl Keating talked in his e-letter about how apologists can make mistakes. One such concern was about a Christian apologist who critiqued Mark Shea’s five myths about seven books, in which states St. Jerome towards the end of his life accepted the Deuterocanonicals. A common citation for this is:
“What sin have I committed if I follow the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating [in my preface to the book of Daniel] the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susannah [Dan. 13], the Song of the Three Children [Dan. 3:29–68, RSV-CE], and the story of Bel and the Dragon [Dan. 14], which are not found in the Hebrew volume, proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. I was not relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they are wont to make against us. If I did not reply to their views in my preface, in the interest of brevity, lest it seem that I was composing not a preface, but a book, I believe I added promptly the remark, for I said, ‘This is not the time to discuss such matters’” (Against Rufinius 11:33 [A.D. 401]).
The Christian apologist states that if we look at the entire passage, we see St. Jerome is talking about what he thinks to be a faulty translation:
"In reference to Daniel my answer will be that I did not say that he was not a prophet; on the contrary, I confessed in the very beginning of the Preface that he was a prophet. But I wished to show what was the opinion upheld by the Jews; and what were the arguments on which they relied for its proof. I also told the reader that the version read in the Christian churches was not that of the Septuagint translators but that of Theodotion. It is true, I said that the Septuagint version was in this book very different from the original, and that it was condemned by the right judgment of the churches of Christ; but the fault was not mine who only stated the fact, but that of those who read the version. We have four versions to choose from: those of Aquila, Symmachus, the Seventy, and Theodotion. The churches choose to read Daniel in the version of Theodotion. What sin have I committed in following the judgment of the churches? But when I repeat what the Jews say against the Story of Susanna and the Hymn of the Three Children, and the fables of Bel and the Dragon, which are not contained in the Hebrew Bible, the man who makes this a charge against me proves himself to be a fool and a slanderer; for I explained not what I thought but what they commonly say against us. I did not reply to their opinion in the Preface, because I was studying brevity, and feared that I should seem to he writing not a Preface but a book. I said therefore, “As to which this is not the time to enter into discussion.”
St. Jerome became critical of the LXX and other Greek revisions, he used the Masoretic text to translate the Old Testament.
What is Theodotion? I did a little research:
newadvent.org/cathen/15367a.htm
This was a revision of the LXX, much like how our RSV-CE was a revision of the King James Bible and other English Translations. As New Advent states, it is the Theodotion revision (which was read by the early Christians) that we find the additional parts of Daniel, not the original LXX. Yes he is talking about the Theodotion translation, however it is talking specifically about the book of Daniel in it (which is the version that has the additional parts). Rufinius first stated that St. Jerome said the Daniel is not a prophet. St. Jerome states that no, he didn’t, that he said the Jews say Daniel is not a prophet, but that later on he stated the he believed Daniel is a prophet. Later on he gives his rebuttal of Rufinius stating St. Jerome’s reason for not wanting to translate the additonal parts of Daniel, he states that he was only restating the charges that the Jews make against Christians who use those verses. The Church told him to translate them, which he did, and he states that he was not giving his personal views, he was only re-stating the charges the Jews make.
“What sin have I committed if I follow the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating [in my preface to the book of Daniel] the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susannah [Dan. 13], the Song of the Three Children [Dan. 3:29–68, RSV-CE], and the story of Bel and the Dragon [Dan. 14], which are not found in the Hebrew volume, proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. I was not relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they are wont to make against us. If I did not reply to their views in my preface, in the interest of brevity, lest it seem that I was composing not a preface, but a book, I believe I added promptly the remark, for I said, ‘This is not the time to discuss such matters’” (Against Rufinius 11:33 [A.D. 401]).
The Christian apologist states that if we look at the entire passage, we see St. Jerome is talking about what he thinks to be a faulty translation:
"In reference to Daniel my answer will be that I did not say that he was not a prophet; on the contrary, I confessed in the very beginning of the Preface that he was a prophet. But I wished to show what was the opinion upheld by the Jews; and what were the arguments on which they relied for its proof. I also told the reader that the version read in the Christian churches was not that of the Septuagint translators but that of Theodotion. It is true, I said that the Septuagint version was in this book very different from the original, and that it was condemned by the right judgment of the churches of Christ; but the fault was not mine who only stated the fact, but that of those who read the version. We have four versions to choose from: those of Aquila, Symmachus, the Seventy, and Theodotion. The churches choose to read Daniel in the version of Theodotion. What sin have I committed in following the judgment of the churches? But when I repeat what the Jews say against the Story of Susanna and the Hymn of the Three Children, and the fables of Bel and the Dragon, which are not contained in the Hebrew Bible, the man who makes this a charge against me proves himself to be a fool and a slanderer; for I explained not what I thought but what they commonly say against us. I did not reply to their opinion in the Preface, because I was studying brevity, and feared that I should seem to he writing not a Preface but a book. I said therefore, “As to which this is not the time to enter into discussion.”
St. Jerome became critical of the LXX and other Greek revisions, he used the Masoretic text to translate the Old Testament.
What is Theodotion? I did a little research:
newadvent.org/cathen/15367a.htm
This was a revision of the LXX, much like how our RSV-CE was a revision of the King James Bible and other English Translations. As New Advent states, it is the Theodotion revision (which was read by the early Christians) that we find the additional parts of Daniel, not the original LXX. Yes he is talking about the Theodotion translation, however it is talking specifically about the book of Daniel in it (which is the version that has the additional parts). Rufinius first stated that St. Jerome said the Daniel is not a prophet. St. Jerome states that no, he didn’t, that he said the Jews say Daniel is not a prophet, but that later on he stated the he believed Daniel is a prophet. Later on he gives his rebuttal of Rufinius stating St. Jerome’s reason for not wanting to translate the additonal parts of Daniel, he states that he was only restating the charges that the Jews make against Christians who use those verses. The Church told him to translate them, which he did, and he states that he was not giving his personal views, he was only re-stating the charges the Jews make.