THREAD SPLIT St. Jerome and the Deuterocanonicals

[epostle]

SyCarl posted the following from another thread, post 41, here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=2997247#post2997247

As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it read these two volumes for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church. If any one is better pleased with the edition of the Seventy, there it is, long since corrected by me. For it is not our aim in producing the new to destroy the old. And yet if our friend reads carefully, he will find that our version is the more intelligible, for it has not turned sour by being poured three times over into different vessels, but has been drawn straight from the press, and stored in a clean jar, and has thus preserved its own flavour.

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf206.vii.iii.x.html

There are of course numerous other examples from Origen, St. Augustine, more from St. Jerome. The Septuagint was the first translation of the Hebrew Old Testament. It was made into popular Greek before the Christian era.

St. Jerome was under the mistaken impression that Septuagint was in error and the Hebrew text was the correct one (as he learned from the Jewish rabbis of his day). We now know that St. Jerome was in error, thanks to findings like the Dead Sea Scrolls. (DSS)

The DSS came from 1st Century Palestine and were very different from the Hebrew texts we can document to the 4th & 5th Centuries AD. The proto-MT tradition actually existed among the DSS material but represented only part of the biblical texts that were there. It became dominant among the Jews in the late 2nd Century around the time that the Mishnah was composed. This was likely to oppose those variant Hebrew readings in the Western Palestinian tradition that the Christians favored from the Septuagint.

St. Jerome had made the incorrect assumption that the Hebrew texts available in his day were superior to the Septuagint and more faithful to the originals. We now know that this is not the case. He did not have the type of information that is available to us today and so his mistake is understandable.
It now appears that the NT and Early Church witness to the Septuagint is justified. It represents a preference on the part of the Christian movement for one of the families of Hebrew OT texts among several. It also now appears that the Jews may have deliberate chosen a different family of Hebrew biblical texts just to spite the Christians.

In any case, there is no evidence in the Early Church that the Hebrew Bible was ever considered to be the ‘true’ Bible over and against the Septuagint. Some individual later theologians like St. Jerome favored the Hebrew texts over the Septuagint, but in retrospect they were in error as were the Protestant Reformers after them. The Septuagint is a valid witness to one family of Hebrew biblical texts, which would have otherwise been unknown except for the DSS. In fact many Early (and modern) Christians have considered the Septuagint to be not only the official Bible of the Christian Church but actually the inspired word of God.

 

[SyCarl]

If the Septuagint is the basis for the canon of the Old Testament, why then is the entire Septuagint included in the Catholic canon?

In addition, Jerome’s Vulgate was translated from the Masoreric text. This is the Vulgate that was the declared authentic by the Council of Trent. Was the Council in error about the Vulgate since the Septuagint has been supposedly found to be the superior? But that can’t be, unless a decree of an ecumenical council can be in error.

As well among the Dead Sea Scrolls were found copies of 1 Enoch and Jubilees. Does this mean that they should be in the canon of Scripture if the presence of some of the Apocrypha there is evidence that they should be?

 

[epostle]

Let’s start with the principle that the New Latin Vulgate Bible is the official version of the bible for the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church. This is based on a millenium of sound study. Consider the fact that it’s principle translator, St. Jerome was a native speaker of Koine Greek and well read in Hebrew and completely fluent in Latin, not an education 2000 years removed as in current scholars but less than 400 years removed from the time of the New Testament’s writings. Consider that Latin has been a stable language since then, so that we can be confident of our understanding of the Latin as it was understood by Jerome, and is understood by the Church. Jerome had access to many fragments that are no longer extant given his proximity to their origin. Jimmy Akin jimmyakin.org/2006/02/revised_ignatiu.html

Apart from the Torah, the first five books of the Bible, the teachers of Israel had never made clear distinctions about which books were or were not considered holy. By 130 B.C., Sirach attests to a tripartite structure in Hebrew Scripture-Law, Prophets, and the Writings-but only the Law and Prophets had a fixed list of books; the content of the Writings was uncertain. The Septuagint, on the other hand, arranged books not by content but by style: narrative, poetical, and prophetic. While Moses and the prophets wrote in Hebrew, post-exilic Jews preferred to write in Greek, thus Greek collections soon had books that the Hebrew lists never saw. Because the Septuagint didn’t have a standard list or ordering of books, the included books varied according to collection, with no clear distinction made between earlier and later works. By the Incarnation, synagogues throughout the Near East used versions of the Septuagint that included Tobit, Judith, the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, Baruch (including the Letter of Jeremiah), 1-3 Maccabees, the Prayer of Manasseh, Psalm 151, the Book of Jubilees, 1 Esdras, and additions to Esther and Daniel.

This situation was not considered a serious problem since Jewish religious instruction relied on oral tradition. Even the Torah was read according to oral tradition. The Torah was written as one long word without spaces, punctuation, or vowels-it was literally the word of God. Rabbinical students learned how to read the text by listening to their elders read it over and over again. Rabbis disliked targums because they encouraged private interpretation of Scripture and undermined divinely-authorized oral teaching authority (cf. Matt. 23:2-3: Christ commands the people to respect their teaching authority, but not their lived example). Oral interpretive tradition was the rule of faith for the Jews.

Jesus accepted this arrangement. He spoke Aramaic. He wrote nothing and did not instruct his disciples to write. He commanded them only to preach orally, in the ancient Judaic teaching tradition. He used the Greek Septuagint to teach. Of approximately 350 references made to the Old Testament by the New Testament writers, over 300 refer to the Septuagint. For example, Jesus, when discussing “human traditions” (Mark 7:6-8), quotes a version of Isaiah 29:13 found only in the Septuagint.
catholic.com/thisrock/1998/9806fea2.asp

Lastly, St. Jerome favored Hebrew books, but did not use the Masoretic texts alone in translating into the Latin Vulgate. Also, he quoted from the Greek Septuagint for doctrinal purposes. Jeromes opposition to the Deuterocanonicals is just wishful thinking on the part of anti-Catholics, who have red-flagged and abuse one single line in his numerous writings. You can find it on every hate site that tries to debunk the complete Bible.

see also matt1618.freeyellow.com/jerome.html

 

[SyCarl]

Lastly, St. Jerome favored Hebrew books, but did not use the Masoretic texts alone in translating into the Latin Vulgate. Also, he quoted from the Greek Septuagint for doctrinal purposes. Jeromes opposition to the Deuterocanonicals is just wishful thinking on the part of anti-Catholics, who have red-flagged and abuse one single line in his numerous writings. You can find it on every hate site that tries to debunk the complete Bible.

see also matt1618.freeyellow.com/jerome.html

It is disappointing that any sort of disagreement seems to bring forth cries of anti-Catholicism. I do think that Jerome’s esteem for the Apocrphya is shown by the amount of attention he gave in translating them.

BEGINNING OF THE PROLOGUE TO TOBIAS

Jerome to the Bishops in the Lord Cromatius and Heliodorus, health!

I do not cease to wonder at the constancy of your demanding. For you demand that I bring a book written in Chaldean words into Latin writing, indeed the book of Tobias, which the Hebrews exclude from the catalogue of Divine Scriptures, being mindful of those things which they have titled Hagiographa. I have done enough for your desire, yet not by my study. For the studies of the Hebrews rebuke us and find fault with us, to translate this for the ears of Latins contrary to their canon. But it is better to be judging the opinion of the Pharisees to displease and to be subject to the commands of bishops. I have persisted as I have been able, and because the language of the Chaldeans is close to Hebrew speech, finding a speaker very skilled in both languages, I took to the work of one day, and whatever he expressed to me in Hebrew words, this, with a summoned scribe, I have set forth in Latin words. I will be paid the price of this work by your prayers, when, by your grace, I will have learned what you request to have been completed by me was worthy.

END OF THE PROLOGUE

tertullian.org/fathers/jerome_preface_tobit.htm

BEGINNING OF THE PROLOGUE TO JUDITH

Among the Hebrews the Book of Judith is found among the Hagiographa, the authority of which toward confirming those which have come into contention is judged less appropriate. Yet having been written in Chaldean words, it is counted among the histories. But because this book is found by the Nicene Council to have been counted among the number of the Sacred Scriptures, I have acquiesced to your request, indeed a demand, and works having been set aside from which I was forcibly curtailed,** I have given to this (book) one short night’s work translating more sense from sense than word from word.** I have removed the extremely faulty variety of the many books; only those which I was able to find in the Chaldean words with understanding intact did I express in Latin ones.

Receive the widow Judith, an example of chastity, and declare triumphal honor with perpetual praises for her. For this one, imitable not only for women, but also for men, has the Rewarder of her chastity given, Who has granted such strength, that she conquered the one unconquered by all men, she surpassed the insurpassable.

END OF THE PROLOGUE

tertullian.org/fathers/jerome_preface_judith_e.htm

 

[epostle]

It is disappointing that any sort of disagreement seems to bring forth cries of anti-Catholicism

Good quotes.
Yes, it is disappointing. I think I was clear as to exactly who misrepresents Jerome, which has more to do with propaganda than “disagreement”.

 

[NotWorthy]

Maybe, we can stick to the facts, without resorting to “anti-anything”.

Is it true that Jerome’s biggest complaint against the Deuterocanonicals was that there no Hebrew records of these books. Again, the DSS have since proven even this argument wrong.

 

[SyCarl]

Maybe, we can stick to the facts, without resorting to “anti-anything”.

Is it true that Jerome’s biggest complaint against the Deuterocanonicals was that there no Hebrew records of these books. Again, the DSS have since proven even this argument wrong.

I am not sure if that was his biggest problem. Prior to moving to Palestine he supported the Apocrypha. His attitude changed after that. I think it was a combination of factors. One of these was that they weren’t written in Hebrew. The Dead Sea scrolls may deal with that provided they were not translated from Greek to Hebrew. It may have been easier for him to tell back then. Another concern was that there was no standard canon for the Septuagint and there was a very wide variation between the various texts. I am not an expert but I have looked at Tobit, for example, in the Douhay-Rheims and several more modern translations. There seem to be 3 different versions of the book in use which may reflect the 3 textual bases that have been identified for the Septuagint, by Jerome in his preface to Chronicles…

Now, in fact, when different versions are held by a variety of regions, and this genuine and ancient translation is corrupted and violated, you have considered our opinion, either to judge which of the many is the true one, or to put together new work with old work, and shutting off to the Jews, as it is said, “a horn to pierce the eyes.” The region of Alexandria and Egypt praises in their Seventy the authority of Hesychius; the region from Constantinople to Antioch approves the version of Lucian the Martyr; in the middle, between these provinces, the people of Palestine read the books which, having been labored over by Origen, Eusebius and Pamphilius published. And all the world contends among them with this threefold variety.

tertullian.org/fathers/jerome_preface_chronicles.htm

Finally, I understand that he felt that it would be easier to dispute with Jews if the Church was using a version based on the canon and text they recognized.

 

[NotWorthy]

I understand that the Ethiopian Jews used the Septuagint Canon that is the one we are familiar with (The Deuterocanonicals plus 2 extra Maccabees and 2 extra Esdras, give or take 1 or 2). This has been used by the Ethiopian Jews for the next 1900 years after they were separated from the rest of the Jews of the world. It seems to indicate that the Jews commonly accepted the deutero’s as inspired text.

 

[Pwrlftr]

I understand that the Ethiopian Jews used the Septuagint Canon that is the one we are familiar with (The Deuterocanonicals plus 2 extra Maccabees and 2 extra Esdras, give or take 1 or 2). This has been used by the Ethiopian Jews for the next 1900 years after they were separated from the rest of the Jews of the world. It seems to indicate that the Jews commonly accepted the deutero’s as inspired text.

It may indicate that the Ethiopian Jews accepted the books you call the deutero’s as inspired text but I’m not sure it indicates that any other group of Jews accepted them.

How would it indicate that “the Jews” (I assume you mean all of Jewry) accepted the 7 books as inspired?

 

[Pwrlftr]

Let’s start with the principle that the New Latin Vulgate Bible is the official version of the bible for the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church. This is based on a millenium of sound study. Consider the fact that it’s principle translator.

Jerome rejected the deuterocanonicals and said as much in his preface to these books in the vulgate. Later in your post you use matt1618 to support your position. I suggest to you to go to another source as matt1618’s arguments have quite a few problems.

The Catholic Encyclopedia (certainly not Protestant friendly) has this to say in it’s section on the OT Canon.

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, the Hebraica veritas as he called it. In his famous “Prologus Galeatus”, or Preface…explicitly says that Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Tobias, and Judith are not on the Canon. These books, he adds, are read in the churches for the edification of the people, and not for the confirmation of revealed doctrine.

This period exhibits a curious exchange of opinions between the West and the East, while ecclesiastical usage remained unchanged, at least in the Latin Church. During this intermediate age the use of St. Jerome’s…Vulgate became widespread in the Occident. With its text went Jerome’s prefaces disparaging the deuterocanonicals, and under the influence of his authority the West began to distrust these and to show the first symptoms of a current hostile to their canonicity.

In the Latin Church, all through the Middle Ages we find evidence of hesitation about the character of the deuterocanonicals. There is a current friendly to them, another one distinctly unfavourable to their authority and sacredness, while wavering between the two are a number of writers whose veneration for these books is tempered by some perplexity as to their exact standing, and among those we note St. Thomas Aquinas. Few are found to unequivocally acknowledge their canonicity. The prevailing attitude of Western medieval authors is substantially that of the Greek Fathers. The chief cause of this phenomenon in the West is to be sought in the influence, direct and indirect, of St. Jerome’s depreciating Prologus.

Not only that, but we know Cardinal Cajetan (prominent Catholic theologian at the time of the Reformation) believed that Jerome rejected the 7 books because he (Cajetan) wrote in his Commentary on All the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament. In this work, Cajetan leaves out the entirety of the Apocrypha since he did not consider it to be Canonical. Cajetan said, “Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the Bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the Bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage.

Are there any scholars (Bruce, Metzger, Beckwith, Kelly) that agree w/ your apparent stance that Jerome accepted the deutero/apocrypha as canonical? While I am no expert on this subject I don’t know of many people outside of matt1618 and a very few Catholic apologists who believe that Jerome accepted the 7 books as being inspired.

From the above it’s apparent that the Catholic Encyclopedia believes Jerome takes such an unfavorable view of the 7 books that he doesn’t believe them to be canonical. Also, and this is a fascinating fact, the vulgate was sent out complete w/ Jerome’s preface calling into question the canonicity of the 7 books which the councils of Carthage and Hippo approved.

We additionally have Cardinal Cajetan who sides with Jerome against the canonocity of the 7 books.

 

[epostle]

Bishops, Cardinals and theologians have an obligation to think for themselves and the freedom to raise questions, contrary to the false perspective of authority. Cardinal Cajetan humbly submitted to the Church after the question was settled once and for all.

St. Jerome was wrong. The explanation of that is in post #1.
St. Jerome is not the Magisterium, and St. Jerome did not give us the New Testament when the full canon was ratified. He was a translator, not a publisher.

 

[Pwrlftr]

Bishops, Cardinals and theologians have an obligation to think for themselves and the freedom to raise questions, contrary to the false perspective of authority. Cardinal Cajetan humbly submitted to the Church after the question was settled once and for all.

St. Jerome was wrong. The explanation of that is in post #1.
St. Jerome is not the Magisterium, and St. Jerome did not give us the New Testament when the full canon was ratified. He was a translator, not a publisher.

I misunderstood your position. I understand you accept the 7 books as canonical but I thought you were arguing that Jerome accepted them as well.

 

[NotWorthy]

It may indicate that the Ethiopian Jews accepted the books you call the deutero’s as inspired text but I’m not sure it indicates that any other group of Jews accepted them.

How would it indicate that “the Jews” (I assume you mean all of Jewry) accepted the 7 books as inspired?

If the Ethiopian Jews, who were “in communion” (for lack of a better term) with the Temple Jews up until the destruction of Jerusalem, were using the Deutero’s, wouldn’t that seem to indicate (not 100% but evidence nonetheless) that the Temple Jews used it also? Doesn’t Christianity teach that the Jews used the DeuteroCanon up until they rejected it (whether is was in Jamnia or in the 14th century). Our good Ethiopians seem to give emphasis to this point.

 

[Pwrlftr]

If the Ethiopian Jews, who were “in communion” (for lack of a better term) with the Temple Jews up until the destruction of Jerusalem, were using the Deutero’s, wouldn’t that seem to indicate (not 100% but evidence nonetheless) that the Temple Jews used it also? Doesn’t Christianity teach that the Jews used the DeuteroCanon up until they rejected it (whether is was in Jamnia or in the 14th century). Our good Ethiopians seem to give emphasis to this point.

I don’t know that they were in communion w/ the Temple Jews.
I don’t know that they weren’t either though.

Outside of the internet, I don’t have a lot of information on this subject. I just bought Roger Beckwith’s OT Canon In The NT Chuch from www.logos.com but even with the digital search function I don’t see where he spends much time on this subject. I’m not saying he didn’t, I just haven’t found it yet.

I have found in Beckwith’s work the following.

The Christian Churchin Ethiopia’s OT Canon listed the following:
Canonical -
Pentateuch
Joshua
Judges
Ruth
Samuel
Kings
Psalms
Isaia
Jeremia
Lamentations
Ezekiel
Daniel
Minor Prophets
Jubilees(?) -apparently there is some dispute over this

Doubtful Canonicity
Chronicles
Esther
Job
Proverbs
Ecclesastes
Song of Songs

Un-Canonical
Ezra-Nehemiah
1 Esdras
2 Esdras (4Ezra)
Tobit
Judith
Wisdom
Ecclesasticus
Baruch
1 Enoch
Ascneson of Isa.
4 Baruch

Uncanonical and Unknown
1-4 Maccabees
Joseph ben Gorion
Ethiophic Maccabees

As I said earlier, I haven’t found where Beckwith addresses the issue of which canon the Ethiopian Jews used.

 

[Pwrlftr]

As far as the Temple Jews go. Is there any evidence that the 7 books were ever stored in the temple?

 

[NotWorthy]

I don’t know that they were in communion w/ the Temple Jews.
I don’t know that they weren’t either though.

If they were Jews, then by definition, they were “in communion” (for lack of a better term) with the Jerusalem Temple. That is what makes one a Jew.

 

[NotWorthy]

As far as the Temple Jews go. Is there any evidence that the 7 books were ever stored in the temple?

Sadly, when one conquers a country, the first thing done is to destroy a country’s identity. This often involves destroying the records along with the Temple. Most info we have are from historians such as Josephus and others, but it is mainly historical, rather than theological.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Maybe I’m getting to late into this split, but in theory, even if it was totally clear that Jerome was completely against the Deuteros (which he was not), what would it matter. Tradition hinges on the Church speaking with “one voice”. Finding exceptions here or there are worthy of examination but hardly authoritative. There is an overwhelming majority of ECF who accept them.

I also find it bizarre that the argument was ever used that the Deuteros wouldn’t belong if they had not been written in Hebrew. What is the sense of that argument when many Jews in centuries just prior to the Birth of Christ spoke Greek?

 

[SyCarl]

I would say that there is a tendency to focus on Jerome because he was considered as the principal authority of this time. As well he was the transaltor of what Trent confirmed as the definitive translation.

To me it does not matter whether they were written in Greek or Hebrew. The only point that was being made was that it seemed to matter to Jerome.

 

[epostle]

What mattered to Jerome was canonicity, he didn’t question inspiration.

"…since there were just so many days in the year, each city-church used readings from different Scriptural books throughout the year …and, in many cases, some books were simply not used (e.g. the Epistle of James or 2nd Maccabees, in many places); and for the simple reason that they did not fit in with the yearly Liturgical schedule of a particular city-church. And so, … When some fathers speak of a particular book as “non-canonical,” they do not necessarily mean that it is not inspired or authoritative. Rather, in many cases, they merely mean that it is not used in the Liturgy of their particular city-church …thus it is a “hidden book” (“apocrypha”), which could be read privately for edification but not in the Liturgy itself (the public worship of the Church --“Lex orendi, lex credendi”). For example … To this day in the Greek Orthodox Church, the Book of Revelation is not read in the Liturgy. You will never hear it at their Mass (or as they term it ‘Liturgy’). Yet, the Greek Orthodox would never say that Revelation is not Sacred Scripture or that it is uninspired. Yet, they will sometimes speak of it as “non-canonical” because it has no place in the “canon” of their Liturgy (e.g. a canonized saint is so-called because they have been granted feast days within our Liturgical calendars). So, throughout Church history, the word “canonical” has been used in several ways. It does not always mean what Martin Luther and the Protestants mean when they speak of a book being canonical or non-canonical. Rather, “non-canonical” can mean that:

1. a book is heretical (e.g. the Gospel of Thomas), or
2. That it is a good book with historical and spiritual merit, but uninspired (e.g. the Shepherd of Hermas), or
3. That it is an inspired book, but not used in the Liturgy of a particular city-church or even in the Liturgy of many city-churches (e.g. Revelation or 2 Maccabees). "