Who did the Protestant reformers think they were to take books out of the Bible?

[Duane1966]

Why Cajetan is not a good argument, from an article by Devin Rose found here:devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/blog/2011/10/24/the-dead-sea-scrolls-and-the-deuterocanonicals/

Cajetan shared Erasmus’ reservations about Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2* and 3 John, and Revelation. That’s right, Cajetan, the Catholic whom Protestants celebrate as proof that the deuterocanonicals should be rejected, wanted to reject books that all Protestants accept in the NT. Hmmm, maybe he’s not such a great witness for Protestantism?

Gary Michuta had a great talk on the DC on CA a few weeks ago. It is available on their podcast. In it he mentions an assumption that St. Jerome was working under that with the finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls, we now know to be false. I will post parts of his talk later.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

What part is bizarre?

Well, let’s look at the OP:

“…So I did research and learned that the original Greek Septuagint contained all of the books in the Catholic Bible along with 1 and 2 Esdras, 3 and 4 Maccabees, and Prayer of Manessah [sic]…”

There’s really no such thing as the “original Greek Septuagint”; even after the codex is invented in the 4th century, the extant witnesses show variation in content.

“…I read that Luther took these books out because he didn’t like them, and wanted to remove Esther, 2 Peyter [sic], Jude, and Revelation as well…”

Just patently false. Simply go to any decent library and look at a copy of Luther’s 1523 translation.

After numerous challenges, no one yet has been able to historically support even tangentially the idea that Luther “wanted to remove” things (but then did not?).

“Oh these books aren’t inspired because I say they aren’t”

Let’s see a quote. The focus on “inspiration” is something that comes out of late 19th/early 20th century Christian fundamentalism.

“2 Maccabees has the doctrine of purgatory in it.”

I think the best you could say is that some post-exilic Jews prayed for the dead.

“And I always thought the irony was that the story of Hanukah [sic] is in 1 Maccabees yet the Hebrew Bible doesn’t even accept it as canon.”

The “story of Hanukkah,” at least as popularly understood, is in the Talmud, not in 1 Maccabees.

So my question is really about trying to understand where some Catholics source their (yes I think “bizarre” is applicable) view of history and who disseminates this erroneous information. Where is the OP-er doing “research”?

 

[Duane1966]

The “story of Hanukkah,” at least as popularly understood, is in the Talmud, not in 1 Maccabees.

Taken from an article by Rabbi Hillel Hayyim Lavery-Yisraeli.

Today Hanukkah is perhaps the best-known Jewish holiday throughout the world. However, despite its popularity, Hanukkah is the holiday with the least textual basis. The story of Hanukkah does not appear in the Tanakh. And while there is a Talmudic tractate named for the one-day festival of Purim (“Massekhet Megillah”), only a few pages of the Babylonian Talmud (B. Shabbat 21b-23a) are devoted to Hanukkah, including one small paragraph describing the historical event, and a few pages dealing with the laws of lighting Hanukkah candles.*

The Hanukkah tale in the Talmud only tells part of the story: only the miracle of the oil is mentioned. The story of the military victory, described in the siddur as the deliverance of “the many at the hands of the few”, is entirely left out. To complete our knowledge of Hanukkah we need to consult the Books of the Maccabees contained in the “Apocrypha,” a collection of books which have some similarities to the books of the Tanakh, but were not canonized by the Sages.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

This is why I included the phrase “as popularly understood”. The story of the oil, which is pretty much the only “story of Hanukkah” that the vast majority of people, both Jewish and non-Jewish, are familiar with, is not found in Maccabees.

 

[benhur]

This whole post is full of errors. St Jerome quotes the deuterocanonicals as scripture approximately 55 times. Here are just a few, taken from this link:matt1618.freeyellow.com/deut.html#St. Jerome, [347-419/420 A.D]

To be continued…

I would like to know if jerome put those books in Vulgate, and if so with reservations . I have heard some say here they were added afterwards(not by Him). I also thought he included them but in the prologues does give his reservations as to them being on same level, or that he knew Jews would have some trouble with their inclusion.

Bottom line is both sides of the argument have plenty of ammo, and you certainly did a lot of homework. As to Jerome, not that easy to figure out, for he does cite as "scripture’’ some quotes from books he says are not on same level as “scripture”, and he is not confusing “canon” and scripture terminology which would explain some fathers but not Jerome’s apparent contradictory statements.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

This is why I included the phrase “as popularly understood”. The story of the oil, which is pretty much the only “story of Hanukkah” that the vast majority of people, both Jewish and non-Jewish, are familiar with, is not found in Maccabees.

Seems the rabbi’s quote does not consider mac on same level as other biblical books. While some use it to justify “tradition” or even popular acceptance/practice, does not raise it to the level of other God breathed ordinance/ festivals. Jesus did not jump on Hannukah bandwagon as this site suggests:

hebrew-streams.org/works/judaism/hanukkah.html

Blessings

 

[Duane1966]

Cajetan’s point is that the books in question can not be used to establish doctrine, they can only serve to edify. If they are canonical, it’s only in this sense, an inferior sense.

In regard to Cajetan’s mention of Augustine, it’s quite possible these words are in view:

This is a fascinating comment when viewed in the light of the anachronistic sentiment that’s been frequently mentioned about the provincial councils of Hippo and Carthage making infallible and dogmatic universal pronouncements on the canon.

Another fascinating tidbit is a closer look at the Bible available to Auguistine, Hippo, and Carthage. It included 1 and 2 Esdras. 1 Esdras was the spurious additions to Ezra and Nehemiah. 2 Esdras was the Jewish (or regular, familiar) version of Ezra-Nehemiah that we’re used to. Jerome then separated Ezra and Nehemiah, calling them 1 and 2 Esdras, dumping the original 1 Esdras out of the doctrine-establishing canon. Fast forward to Trent: Trent declares Jerome’s version of 1 & 2 Esdras to be canonical, and disregards the original 1 Esdras that Augustine, Hippo, and Carthage had. So in essence, Hippo, Carthage, and Augustine had a different canon than Trent.

Gary Michuta Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger (Michigan: Grotto Press, 2007)], resolves this dilemma by asserting Trent “passed over in silence” the spurious book of Esdras in question. I’m not completely sure if Michuta’s assertion is correct, but for the sake of argument, I’ll grant it is. He’s solved one problem and created another. The possibility now exists that the book in question is canonical, but not in the canon. Therefore, it is possible that the Bible is missing a book, in which case, Catholics cannot be certain they have an infallible list of all the infallible books. It would also mean, the canon is still theoretically open. Michuta notes that 42 people at Trent voted to pass over the book in silence. If Michuta is correct on his interpretation of Trent, these 42 people solved the problem of the contradiction between Hippo, Carthage, and Trent, but created the problem of an unclosed canon, and uncertainty in regard to the canon.

The Catholic Catechism says, “It was by the apostolic Tradition that the Church discerned which writings are to be included in the list of the sacred books. This complete list is called the canon of Scripture. It includes 46 books for the Old Testament…”

If Michuta is correct, is the Catechism is wrong?

 

[Duane1966]

This is a fascinating comment when viewed in the light of the anachronistic sentiment that’s been frequently mentioned about the provincial councils of Hippo and Carthage making infallible and dogmatic universal pronouncements on the canon.

Another fascinating tidbit is a closer look at the Bible available to Auguistine, Hippo, and Carthage. It included 1 and 2 Esdras. 1 Esdras was the spurious additions to Ezra and Nehemiah. 2 Esdras was the Jewish (or regular, familiar) version of Ezra-Nehemiah that we’re used to. Jerome then separated Ezra and Nehemiah, calling them 1 and 2 Esdras, dumping the original 1 Esdras out of the doctrine-establishing canon. Fast forward to Trent: Trent declares Jerome’s version of 1 & 2 Esdras to be canonical, and disregards the original 1 Esdras that Augustine, Hippo, and Carthage had. So in essence, Hippo, Carthage, and Augustine had a different canon than Trent.

You have a potential major problem with what you have stated. There is every reason to believe that the councils of Hippo and Carthage actually viewed 1 Esdras as Ezra and 2 Esdras as Nehemiah. Most of the following is taken from an article at The Catholic Legate

The division of Ezra-Nehemiah into two separate books did not originate with St. Jerome’s Vulgate in the late 4th and early 5th centuries as many claim, we can trace it to a much earlier date. Origen, over one hundred years before St. Jerome “knew this material as two books in Greek” ([Ezra & Nehemiah:] A single volume in the Hebrew Bible and in the original LXX, until the two parts were separated in a Hebrew MS dated 1448 and in most printed editions, following the Vulgate; but Origen (died 254) and Jerome (died 420) knew this material as two books in Greek.”(The Interpreter’s Bible Dictionary (Abingdon Press, 1990), Vol. 2, p. 215.).
The custom of dividing Ezra-Nehemiah into two books seems to have come from Christian sources.

Origen and St. Jerome were not the only early sources which showed that Ezra-Nehemiah had been divided into separate books with the titles 1 & 2 Esdras. The 4th century Synod of Laodicea in the East and St. Athanasius both listed the material in Ezra-Nehemiah as two books “First and Second Esdras”

Synod of Laodicea (Canon 60): “These are all the books of Old Testament appointed to be read: 1, Genesis of the world; 2, The Exodus from Egypt; 3, Leviticus; 4, Numbers; 5, Deuteronomy; 6, Joshua, the son of Nun; 7, Judges, Ruth; 8, Esther; 9, Of the Kings, First and Second; 10, Of the Kings, Third and Fourth; 11, Chronicles, First and Second; 12, Esdras, First and Second; 13, The Book of Psalms; 14, The Proverbs of Solomon; 15, Ecclesiastes; 16, The Song of Songs;17, Job; 18, The Twelve Prophets; 19, Isaiah; 20, Jeremiah, and Baruch, the Lamentations, and the Epistle; 21, Ezekiel; 22, Daniel.”( NPNF, Series 2, Volume 14.)

Athanasius: “For there are in all twenty-two books of the Old Testament. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. After this comes Joshua, and Judges, and Ruth. The four books of the Kings, counted as two. Then Chronicles, counted the two as one. Then First and Second Esdras ****. After these Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Cantica. To these follow Job, and the Twelve Prophets, counted as one book. Then Isaiah, Jeremiah together with the Epistle of Baruch, the Lamentations, Ezekiel, and Daniel.”( 39th Festal Letter, NPNF, Series 2, Volume 4. Notice that the editors believe Athanasius was referring to Ezra-Nehemiah.)**.
Rufinus referred to the “two books of Ezra”)

“Of the Old Testament, therefore, first of all there have been handed down five books of Moses, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Then Jesus Nave, (Joshua the son of Nun), The Book of Judges together with Ruth; then four books of Kings (Reigns), which the Hebrews reckon two; the Book of Omissions, which is entitled the Book of Days (Chronicles),and two books of Ezra (Ezra and Nehemiah), which the Hebrews reckon one,

and Esther; of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel; moreover of the twelve (minor) Prophets, one hook; Job also and the Psalms of David, each one book. Solomon gave three books to the Churches, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles. These comprise the books of the Old Testament.” (Rufinus, A Commentary on the Apostles Creed, NPNF, Series 2, Volume 3.0)
Cyril of Jerusalem notes that “first and second of Esdras are counted one”

“For of the Law the books of Moses are the first five, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. And next, Joshua the son of Nun, and the book of Judges, including Ruth, counted as seventh. And of the other historical books, the first and second books of the Kings are among the Hebrews one book; also the third and fourth one book. And in like manner, the first and second of Chronicles are with them one book; and the first and second of Esdras are counted one.

Esther is the twelfth book; and these are the historical writings. But those which are written in verse are five, Job, and the book of Psalms, and Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs, which is the seventeenth book. And after these come the five prophetic books; of the Twelve Prophets one book, of Isaiah one, of Jeremiah one, including Baruch and Lamentations and the Epistle; then Ezekiel, and the book of Daniel, the twenty-second of the Old Testament.” Cyril of Jerusalem,** (Catechetical Letters, IV. 33. Translation found online at bible-researcher.com/cyril.html**.)to be continued…

 

[Duane1966]

Part 2.

Hippo, Carthage & Trent on Esdras

The Synod of Hippo in 393 A.D. adopted a canon of books as Scripture which is identical to that found in the Catholic Biblical Canon, listing the “two books of Esdras”. Although the acts of this synod have been lost, its canons were adopted four years later in 397 A.D. at the Third Synod of Carthage.

There is no proof that when the Synods of Hippo and Carthage listed the “two books of Esdras” they had the apocryphal 1 Esdras in mind as the first of these. When we examine the history of the Biblical Canon from Hippo in the late 4th century on until Trent in the mid-16th century, we find no evidence of a change in the books of Esdras that are listed in the Canon. Because of this, it is reasonable to believe that the “two books of Esdras” adopted by Hippo and Carthage were Ezra and Nehemiah.

In the late 4th century, Pope St. Damasus I (366-384 A.D.) commissioned St. Jerome to translate the Bible from the original languages into Latin. Due to the many errors and corruptions, which had crept into the various Old Latin versions of the Septuagint, Pope St. Damasus was concerned that the Scriptures used by the Church had strayed from the ‘original’ texts which had been handed down. St. Jerome began work on the Gospels first and completed them in 384 A.D. They were not received without controversy. In 390 A.D., he began his translation of the books of the Old Testament, using the Hebrew alone as his source. All of this sparked a heated debate in the Church since his Vulgate translations departed from the traditional Septuagint version in preferring the Hebrew to the Greek in the Old Testament. His translation of Esdras was completed sometime in 394 A.D., meaning his work on this was contemporary with the proceedings at the Synod of Hippo in 393 A.D. He completed his Vulgate translation in about 405 A.D. and submitted it to Pope St. Innocent I (401-417 A.D.) that same year. The controversy over it continued. St. Jerome’s further insistence that the deuterocanonical books were not part of the Canon but instead were part of the Apocrypha likewise brought protest. Indeed, just the reception he faced from his translation of the Gospels is enough to give light to the intense criticism he faced:

In 406 A.D. St. Jerome wrote a rather polemical response to the heretic Vigilantius, for which he was widely hailed. In this letter, he wrote in response to Vigilantius’ use of apocryphal 1 Esdras as witness to his heresies:

“As for you, when wide awake you are asleep, and asleep when you write, and you bring before me an apocryphal book which, under the name of Esdras, is read by you and those of your father, and in this book it is written that after death no one dares pray for others. I have never read the book: for what need is there to take up what the Church does not receive?” ( St. Jerome, Letter Against Vigilantius, NPNF, Series 2, Volume 6.)

What is the response from the North African Church to St. Jerome’s supposed audacity in claiming that apocryphal 1 Esdras was not received by the Church? Nothing. This is the pugnacious North African Church that Protestant apologists frequently exploit when discussing the papacy because of the 3rd century dispute over baptism between St. Cyprian of Carthage and the Holy See. Perhaps when it comes to the books of Esdras we are supposed to believe that the North African Church was far tamer in St. Augustine’s day than in St. Cyprian’s, which is why we find nothing but silence. Such docility on their part seems hardly likely and really stretches the bounds of credulity.“So far from being immediately popular, Jerome’s improved version of the Latin Gospels was greeted with the howl of indignation he had predicted. This is apparently from an angry but revealing letter which he wrote shortly after the work was published. Contemptible characters, he protested, ‘asses with two legs’ who preferred to lap up muddy rivulets rather than drink the pellucid fountain of the original Greek, were attacking his presumption in flouting tradition and tampering with the inspired words of the Gospels. They were so stupid that they did not realize that he was correcting, not the Lord’s sayings, but the manifest faultiness of the Latin codices. To silence them he would blow a trumpet in their ears, since a lyre would make no impression on asses.” (See J.N.D. Kelly’s Jerome: His Life, Writings, and Controversies (Hendrickson Publishers edition, 1998), p.89.)

to be continued…

 

[Duane1966]

Part 3.

Regardless of the merits of the positions on both sides, St. Jerome obviously did not suffer from shyness in expressing himself, nor could his critics be accused of being shrinking violets either (E.g., Rufinus’ Letter Against Jerome, Chapters 32-36. Rufinus and St. Jerome were engaged in a bitter dispute over Origenism, but in this letter Rufinus severely castigates his former friend over the Vulgate. The following excerpt should demonstrate the antagonism Rufinus and many like-minded critics had of St. Jerome’s Latin Vulgate:

“Perhaps it was a greater piece of audacity to alter the books of the divine Scriptures which had been delivered to the Churches of Christ by the Apostles to be a complete record of their faith by making a new translation under the influence of the Jews… But how are we to regard those translations of yours which you are now sending about everywhere, through our churches and monasteries, through all our cities and walled towns? are they to be treated as human or divine? And what are we to do when we are told that the books which bear the names of the Hebrew Prophets and lawgivers are to be had from you in a truer form than that which was approved by the Apostles? How, I ask, is this mistake to be set right, or rather, how is this crime to be expiated?”** Translation found online at newadvent.org/fathers/2709.htm**).

Are we to believe St. Jerome’s supposed dropping of the apocryphal 1 Esdras from the Canon and division of Ezra-Nehemiah into two books as “1 Esdras” and “2 Esdras” must have slipped by the notice of the early Church? Nowhere do we find evidence of any controversy over this. It is also inconceivable that there would be nothing indicating that such a change had taken place in the late 4th Century whether in the form of a decree, encyclical, personal letter, book, off-hand remark, or objection. There were many objections raised to St. Jerome’s Vulgate in this time period, but on this issue,** we have silence.** Why is that?** It is remarkable that no one in the North African Church – especially St. Augustine – made any protest to St. Jerome’s supposed actions of dropping a canonical book and dividing another to cover this fact, let alone any defense of apocryphal 1 Esdras if it were part of their Canon.**

to be continued…

 

[Duane1966]

Conclusion.

There have been assertions that Pope St. Innocent I in his Letter to Exuperius, as well as Popes St. Gelasius I (492-496 A.D.) and St. Hormisdas (514-523 A.D.), all “contradicted” Trent by ‘accepting’ the apocryphal Esdras supposedly adopted at Hippo and Carthage. There is no basis to make such a claim. This is an assertion solely from the name assigned to the books in question: 1&2 Esdras. We’ve seen how unreasonable it is to merely assume that Hippo and Carthage adopted the apocryphal Esdras. To this one must add that St. Jerome’s Vulgate was widely known and was in use, during the pontificates of all three of these men. One has to wonder why no move was made to suppress the Vulgate, let alone why no mention is made by any of them opposing St. Jerome and the Vulgate, if all these claims are true. Interestingly enough, we also find silence on this from another Synod of Carthage in 419 A.D., which adopted a very similar decree as its predecessor in 397 A.D.:

“It is decreed that nothing but the canonical Scriptures may be read under the name of divine Scripture. The canonical Scriptures are the following: Of the Old Testament, Genesis… Job, the Psalter, five books of Solomon, the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, the Twelve Prophets, Tobias, Judith, Esther, two books of Ezra, two books of Maccabees… This decree shall be made known to our brother Boniface, the Bishop of Rome, or even the other bishops for its confirmation; for we have received from the Fathers, that thus should be read in the Church.”

The “two books of Esdras” were known to be Ezra-Nehemiah from this time till the Ecumenical Council of Trent in the mid-16th century. This Council was called to reform the Church and in response to the Protestant Reformation. From the surviving personal diaries of some of the leading Tridentine Fathers, as well as the acts of the Council itself, we know that the doubts about the status of the deuterocanonicals raised by the Protestants and such figures as St. Jerome, along with even so-called “Jeromist” contemporaries within the Church such as Cardinals Ximenes and St. Cajetan, were very much on their minds. Although the Ecumenical Council of Florence nearly a century earlier had seemed to infallibly decree the Canon of the Church, the status of this decree was in doubt amongst many Catholic scholars during the Reformation before Trent. The history of the formation of the Canon in the Church was discussed at Trent, including the history of the early synods and some of the Church Fathers already mentioned. The decree on the Canon passed by Trent was deliberately intended to be the same as that from Carthage centuries earlier.

“And so that no doubt may arise in anyone’s mind as to which are the books that are accepted by this [Council], it has decreed that a list of the Sacred books be added to this decree… Books of the Old Testament: The five books of Moses, namely, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Josue, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings two of Paralipomenon, the first book of Esdras, and the second which is called Nehemias, Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Psalter of David consisting of 150 psalms, the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiastics, Isaias, Jeremias with Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel, the twelve minor Prophets, that is Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Michaeas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggaeus, Zacharius, Malachias; two books of the Machabees, the first and second… If anyone, however, should not accept the said books as sacred and canonical, entire with all their parts, as they were wont to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate edition, and if both knowingly and deliberately he should condemn the aforesaid traditions let him be anathema.”(Denzinger, pp. 244-25.)

In particular, Trent listed the Ezra-Nehemiah material as “the first book of Esdras, and the second which is called Nehemias.” No where do we see the Council Fathers speak of any dispute over the identity of the “two books of Esdras” as the North African Synods had called them. The Council did draw its list from the “old Latin Vulgate”, but with the evidence given it has not been shown that Trent differed from Carthage in its decree. Given the rigorous debate between Protestants and Catholics at the time, it is amazing that no one raised this as an issue. It is not as if the Catholic argument using Hippo and Carthage as witnesses to the Canon was unknown, indeed Protestant apologists strongly challenged the Catholic Canon. Yet no Protestant leader or apologist of which I am aware raised this as an issue. This would have been a very embarrassing argument against the deliberations of the Fathers at Trent, if one assumes the claims made above are correct.** Instead on the books of Esdras we find nothing but silence – once again**

 

[Duane1966]

Gary Michuta had a great talk on the DC on CA a few weeks ago. It is available on their podcast. In it he mentions an assumption that St. Jerome was working under that with the finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls, we now know to be false. I will post parts of his talk later.

The mistake that St. Jerome made, very interesting. Starts at the 36 minute mark and goes through the 38 minute mark. catholic.com/radio/shows/the-case-for-the-deuterocanon-31043#

 

[Duane1966]

Seems the rabbi’s quote does not consider mac on same level as other biblical books. While some use it to justify “tradition” or even popular acceptance/practice, does not raise it to the level of other God breathed ordinance/ festivals. Jesus did not jump on Hannukah bandwagon as this site suggests:

Blessings

You might like to listen to this about how the Jews viewed Macabbees in the Middle Ages. The next question goes into Sirach, a Jewish scholar comments on it, pointing to Sirach being accepted as Sacred Scripture. The question on Hannukah starts at 28:30 mark, and the comments on Sirach end at around 35 minute mark, about 7 minutes total listen. catholic.com/radio/shows/the-case-for-the-deuterocanon-31043#

 

[TertiumQuid]

You have a potential major problem with what you have stated. There is every reason to believe that the councils of Hippo and Carthage actually viewed 1 Esdras as Ezra and 2 Esdras as Nehemiah. Most of the following is taken from an article at The Catholic Legate

Hi Duane1966,

I’ve been waiting for you to actually post something in response to something I posted specifically. I appreciate you commenting on the Esdras problem. In response, I would suggest you reference Gary Michuta’s book, Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger (Michigan: Grotto Press, 2007). See page 238-243. See specifically the last paragraph on page 240 on the Capita Dubitationum (2007 edition).

Thanks.

Edited to add: Your article from the Catholic Legate by John Betts was written in response to William Webster. Have you read Webster’s response to Betts? I’m trying to avoid cut-and-pastes. while I appreciate your efforts, I’m good with just a summary statement from you and a link to what you think is meaningful. I’d rather interact with you, not an excessive amount of cut-and-pasted text.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

The mistake that St. Jerome made, very interesting. Starts at the 36 minute mark and goes through the 38 minute mark. catholic.com/radio/shows/the-case-for-the-deuterocanon-31043#

I listened to the whole show. Although Gary Michuta does get some things right about Jerome, a lot of his statements about this topic are either misinformed, are not backed by evidence, or just plain false—and he uses these claims with no/counter evidence to build an entire historical house of cards.

Michuta begins by stating that the Jews of the second century wanted one standard text and chose one over all the others. This is part of his “Council-of-Jamnia-that-wasn’t-a-council-but-still-happened” construal, which doesn’t hold water. (Of course the codex hadn’t even been invented yet, so one would have to think of an authoritative set of scrolls–not a book with a table of contents.)

The problems are 1) that there’s simply no evidence that the Jews lead by R. Akiva (52:39) decided on one standard Hebrew text in the second century and 2) even if R. Akiva had made such a decision, there’s no evidence that anyone else would have seen his decision as authoritative or binding in any way.

Then Michuta posits that this theoretical “standard Hebrew text” (again, for which there is no evidence) was the one being used by Jerome, for which there is also no evidence.

Then around 36:38 Michuta states that Jerome abandoned his project of cleaning up the Latin text and decided to translate “straight from the Hebrew,” which again is false—as can be easily seen by reading Jerome’s translation notes on Genesis: amazon.com/Jeromes-Questions-Genesis-Christian-Studies/dp/0198263503. Jerome’s translation is more or less a translation of the Septuagint, adopting some occasional variants suggested by the Hebrew.

Then, Michuta makes sort of an oblique argument at 37:34 that the Dead Sea Scrolls prove Jerome wrong on the canon, which also simply isn’t the case. First of all, only fragments of Sirach, Tobit and Baruch of the Deuterocanonicals (Michuta also gets this detail wrong around 31:40) were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, so if one wants to build a case solely on whether or not a text was found in the Judean Desert, that leaves out a number of candidates–particularly the ones that were written in Greek–ones which the Qumranites were not likely to have accepted as Scripture. Also, the Qumran discoveries include lots of texts that are not biblical in any sense. Just because you have a book in your library or take the time to copy a book doesn’t mean you think it’s scripture.

Actually, I think Gary Michuta is probably not a trained Bible scholar and is probably trying to do the best he can to push his pre-assumed ideas about what is true. I do give him credit for gently pushing back on Patrick Coffin’s repeated assertions (three times I think) that the “reformers removed the books”–an oft-repeated CAL canard also mentioned in the O.P.

But, going back to my comments on the O.P., what I would really would like to understand why some Catholic apologists feel free to make up history like this to support their claims? And why other Catholics buy into it?

 

[Duane1966]

I listened to the whole show. Although Gary Michuta does get some things right about Jerome, a lot of his statements about this topic are either misinformed, are not backed by evidence, or just plain false—and he uses these claims with no/counter evidence to build an entire historical house of cards.

Michuta begins by stating that the Jews of the second century wanted one standard text and chose one over all the others. This is part of his “Council-of-Jamnia-that-wasn’t-a-council-but-still-happened” construal, which doesn’t hold water. (Of course the codex hadn’t even been invented yet, so one would have to think of an authoritative set of scrolls–not a book with a table of contents.)

The problems are 1) that there’s simply no evidence that the Jews lead by R. Akiva (52:39) decided on one standard Hebrew text in the second century

books.google.com/books?id=JDZ_AgAAQBAJ&pg=PA70&lpg=PA70&dq=r+akiva+hebrew+standard+text&source=bl&ots=I5_pAtcwqD&sig=82Jozg0Q1boTFeur1E6IksiuICo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDkQ6AE pg. 70 seems to contradict your statement.

books.google.com/books?id=NoPZu79hqaEC&pg=PA133&lpg=PA133&dq=r+akiva+hebrew+standard+text&source=bl&ots=ciUW0a0mal&sig=sKPSBNLdnR1pAvcpdvBaqwUXd3o&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDwQ6AEwBmoVChMImpv244-lxwIVj4uSCh3u5AQb#v=onepage&q=r%20akiva%20hebrew%20standard%20text&f=false as does pg. 133. These are just two of innumerable books I found on a simple search that contradict your statement.

and 2) even if R. Akiva had made such a decision, there’s no evidence that anyone else would have seen his decision as authoritative or binding in any way.

And yet both of those pages specifically link R. Akiva to the standardized texts.

Some articles have called R. Akiva one of the greatest Rabbis in Jewish history. jewishhistory.org/rabbi-akiva-2/

Among the many great figures in Jewish history, Rabbi Akiva arguably represents a combination of everything that is heroic about the Jewish people more than anyone else. At the least, he is one of the most beloved figures in Jewish history, a person whose influence and stature is a source of inspiration throughout all of the ages. Whatever one says about Rabbi Akiva one can never say enough. The Talmud (Menachos 29a) compares him favorably to Moses, which is the ultimate compliment in the Jewish lexicon. He is the national hero of the Jewish people for all time.

and newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Akiva

Akiva ben Joseph (Hebrew: עקיבא) or simply Rabbi Akiva—also spelled Akiba or Aqiba—was a Judean sage of the late first and early second century (c. 50–135 C.E.).** He was a great authority in the matter of Jewish tradition, and one of the most central and essential contributors to the Mishnah and Midrash Halakha—the precursors of the Talmud. He is referred to in the Talmud as Rosh la-Chachomim (Head of all the Sages) and the “father of the Mishna.”**

Akiva set the standard of Judaism’s strong yet flexible adherence to a tradition which refused to compromise on basic points of the Mosaic Law yet was willing to change with the times. He argued for the liberalization of oppressive rules regarding female purity, the strengthening of rules limiting slavery, and an open attitude toward formerly hated categories of people such as Samaritans and tax-collectors.

Rising from a humble background as a poor shepherd, Akiva was supported by his wife, Rachel, in his studies, from which he emerged as one of the greatest teachers of his age. Akiva was also a supporter of the revolt of Simon Bar Kochba, to whom he gave great credibility when he declared the rebel leader to be the promised Messiah of the Jews. Akiva later died a martyr’s death at the hands of the Romans. He is revered in Judaism today both in story and liturgy and is** considered by many to be the father of rabbinic Judaism.**

You may be right. Probably no one paid attention to him.

Then Michuta posits that this theoretical “standard Hebrew text” (again, for which there is no evidence) was the one being used by Jerome, for which there is also no evidence.

And yet book after book says St. Jerome used that standardized text called the proto-Masoretic. books.google.com/books?id=2pSGAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA87&lpg=PA87&dq=did+jerome+use+proto+masoretic+in+translation?&source=bl&ots=U9YJv6ataT&sig=MgjiwPUEuQJ0AWNuStWbIARkmyU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CD4Q6AEwBWoVChMIj5G2kJWlxwIV0Y6SCh0jKAM2#v=onepage&q=did%20jerome%20use%20proto%20masoretic%20in%20translation%3F&f=false

books.google.com/books?id=HoEa3ho-ipMC&pg=PA23&lpg=PA23&dq=did+jerome+use+proto+masoretic&source=bl&ots=OdCJs9ycHq&sig=tJOCphzKYIozKTcNwB1510-wpaw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDgQ6AEwBGoVChMI4beV1ZmlxwIVxTuICh0Z-Axr#v=onepage&q=did%20jerome%20use%20proto%20masoretic&f=false

to be continued…

 

[Duane1966]

Part 2.

You said:

Then around 36:38 Michuta states that Jerome abandoned his project of cleaning up the Latin text and decided to translate “straight from the Hebrew,” which again is false—as can be easily seen by reading Jerome’s translation notes on Genesis: amazon.com/Jeromes-Questions-Genesis-Christian-Studies/dp/0198263503. Jerome’s translation is more or less a translation of the Septuagint, adopting some occasional variants suggested by the Hebrew.

This article (Lutheran) agrees with Michuta. fourthcentury.com/jerome-translations-of-scripture/

Not only do we know that such a dedication would have been a common literary device, but there is also evidence that Jerome was prone to exaggeration. In his Famous Men, he claims to have completed a translation of the entire Old Testament, though he was nowhere near completion.2 See the notes on letters 18a, 18b, 19, 20, 35, and 36 for other questionable letters addressed to and from Damasus. So Gribmont’s explanation is not difficult to accept, and seems to agree with what we see in Jerome’s practice –** that he began by revising the existing Latin versions of select books, based on the Greek.** It was only after several years that he decided to make a fresh translation of the Old Testament from the Hebrew, and even re-translated some books he had revised based on the Greek.**

As does this one: bible-researcher.com/vulgate2.html

Up to that time all Latin versions had been based upon the Greek version (called the translation of “the Seventy” or the Septuagint). But Augustine had learned that Jerome was now making a translation from the Hebrew, which differed in many places from the Septuagint. (Jerome had previously translated from the Septuagint, but after 390 he began to translate direct from the Hebrew. See the history of Jerome’s work in the article by S. Angus on this site). Augustine calls upon Jerome to justify this departure from the customary text, tells of a disturbance which has arisen on this account, and urges him to reconsider. Jerome replies with characteristic vigor.

You said:

Then, Michuta makes sort of an oblique argument at 37:34 that the Dead Sea Scrolls prove Jerome wrong on the canon, which also simply isn’t the case. First of all, only fragments of Sirach, Tobit and Baruch of the Deuterocanonicals (Michuta also gets this detail wrong around 31:40) were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, so if one wants to build a case solely on whether or not a text was found in the Judean Desert, that leaves out a number of candidates–particularly the ones that were written in Greek–ones which the Qumranites were not likely to have accepted as Scripture. Also, the Qumran discoveries include lots of texts that are not biblical in any sense. Just because you have a book in your library or take the time to copy a book doesn’t mean you think it’s scripture.

You need to re-listen to the podcast. Michuta specifically says fragments were found. What detail are you saying he got wrong? Actually what Michuta says is that St. Jerome didn’t realize that there were multiple Hebrew texts. In his letter to St. Augustine, St. Jerome says he is translating from the original texts, saying that the Septuagint says more than was found in the original Hebrew. From his letter to St. Augustine found here: bible-researcher.com/vulgate2.html

… you ask why a former translation which I made of some of the canonical books was carefully marked with asterisks and obelisks, whereas I afterwards published a translation without these. You must pardon my saying that you seem to me not to understand the matter: for the former translation is from the Septuagint; and wherever obelisks are placed, they are designed to** indicate that the Seventy have said more than is found in the Hebrew.** But the asterisks indicate what has been added by Origen from the version of Theodotion. In that version I was translating from the Greek: but in the later version, translating from the Hebrew itself, I have expressed what I understood it to mean, being careful to preserve rather the exact sense than the order of the words. I am surprised that you do not read the books of the Seventy translators in the genuine form in which they were originally given to the world, but as they have been corrected, or rather corrupted, by Origen, with his obelisks and asterisks; and that you refuse to follow the translation, however feeble, which has been given by a Christian man, especially seeing that Origen borrowed the things which he has added from the edition of a man who, after the passion of Christ, was a Jew and a blasphemer. Do you wish to be a true admirer and partisan of the Seventy translators? Then do not read what you find under the asterisks; rather erase them from the volumes, that you may approve yourself indeed a follower of the ancients. If, however, you do this, you will be compelled to find fault with all the libraries of the Churches; for you will scarcely find more than one manuscript here and there which has not these interpolations.

We now know that the more than was found in the Hebrew that St. Jerome was translating from, is in the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls. So yes St. Jerome was mistaken. He thought the* more *of the Septuagint was a corruption, when we now know it to be found in other early texts of Hebrew.

to be continued…

 

[Duane1966]

Concluding post:

You said:

Actually, I think Gary Michuta is probably not a trained Bible scholar and is probably trying to do the best he can to push his pre-assumed ideas about what is true. I do give him credit for gently pushing back on Patrick Coffin’s repeated assertions (three times I think) that the “reformers removed the books”–an oft-repeated CAL canard also mentioned in the O.P.

You may be right about the training? I’m not, are you? Can a trained scholar be wrong and a layman right?

If you lived right before the Reformation, most likely you would be Catholic correct? And if you were a scholar, and knew the books of the Bible, you would know the Deuterocanons as Scripture correct (you personally at the time might have considered yourself a Jeromist, but you knew that the Church held them to be Scripture)? Now there are many Bibles today that do not contain those Deuterocanons, or they list them as apocryphal and not Scripture correct? So the Reformers may not have officially removed them, but they sure got the ball rolling on their removal, correct?

You said:

But, going back to my comments on the O.P., what I would really would like to understand why some Catholic apologists feel free to make up history like this to support their claims? And why other Catholics buy into it?

You can go to a ton of Protestant websites that state the exact same thing that the O.P. stated, why do they buy into it? Why was I on one Protestant website which said that papal bulls were written on the skin of infants that were murdered by Catholic priests? And how about those websites talking about the female and pregnant pope? I know Protestants who know and believe both of these things. Why do they buy into it?

 

[benhur]

You might like to listen to this about how the Jews viewed Macabbees in the Middle Ages. The next question goes into Sirach, a Jewish scholar comments on it, pointing to Sirach being accepted as Sacred Scripture. The question on Hannukah starts at 28:30 mark, and the comments on Sirach end at around 35 minute mark, about 7 minutes total listen. catholic.com/radio/shows/the-case-for-the-deuterocanon-31043#

Took a quick listen 8 min. and found it pretty good but still typical “posturing”. The idea that P’s chop out books because they contain C stuff is wrong. JonC disputed here (could not find his post) that *nowhere *did Luther mention taking out mac 2 because of it’s purgatory implications. I also found it a bit disingenuos when the radio question was posed as to why books were taken out and both host and guest had zero inkling as to why except they were Catholic supporting.Really? The only reason? I wonder if the radio show mentions that the CC also cut out books, did not include all books that were in the Septuagint either . Kind of like when CC rightly keeps out books because of an error in the book or from good criteria the P’s do not rightly do so also? Luther used much of the criteria that many scholars use, including CC, to determine God-breathedness. But yes , more stringent criteria, and many say scholarly criteria.

Then comes to attack fling that Luther did not like the book of James, yet Luther’s remarks in his preface to James contained similar comments made by others (Catholics), even Jerome,… and who cares, he included the book.

Finally the assertion that Hebrews mentions martyrs and their “hope for a better resurrection” coming right out of 2nd Mac as if Mac then had to "scripture. Maybe maybe not, as if there were no other books that it may be garnered from. Also if an inspired writer “borrows” a phrase from another source does that make the source also God-breathed? I mean I think Paul quotes a few things to make his point that came from “outside” sources.

But thank you and may listen some more,and thanks for letting me rant.

Blessings

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Part 2.

You said:This article (Lutheran) agrees with Michuta. fourthcentury.com/jerome-translations-of-scripture/
As does this one: bible-researcher.com/vulgate2.html

You said:You need to re-listen to the podcast. Michuta specifically says fragments were found. What detail are you saying he got wrong? Actually what Michuta says is that St. Jerome didn’t realize that there were multiple Hebrew texts. In his letter to St. Augustine, St. Jerome says he is translating from the original texts, saying that the Septuagint says more than was found in the original Hebrew. From his letter to St. Augustine found here: bible-researcher.com/vulgate2.htmlWe now know that the more than was found in the Hebrew that St. Jerome was translating from, is in the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls. So yes St. Jerome was mistaken. He thought the* more *of the Septuagint was a corruption, when we now know it to be found in other early texts of Hebrew.

to be continued…

I think our basic disagreement is in understanding what constitutes historical evidence. “Here’s an article on the Internet” or “here it says right here in a book” is not evidence unless it’s well-founded and argued using the historical record–not based on opinion or speculation.

There’s absolutely NOTHING in the historical record that says that R. Akiva formed a standardized Jewsh canon or Hebrew text. And even if he had, Jews in Babylon for example (the center of Jewish learning and scholarship by the time of the Mishnah) might have found his opinion interesting but not necessarily authoritative. R. Akiva was not the “pope” of Judaism–that’s just not how Judaism functions.

As an aside, it’s interesting and somewhat revealing that Michuta calls R. Akiva a “false prophet” around 8:00–assumedly to discredit him and his fictional text/canon. I’m positive Jews would find such language pretty offensive.

Anyway, Jerome did not prepare his translation based on the Hebrew text, and to show such, I referred you to Jerome’s own notes–not to a secondary source. And if you don’t want to believe Jerome’s own translation notes, then here’s another very simple way of seeing this: do a side by side comparison of the text of the Vulgate and the Septuagint and the Masoretic Text. Just start reading at Gen. 1:1 and see to which of the two texts the Vulgate most closely matches. The Septuagint Jerome readily preserves odd/erroneous Septuagintal constructions that are inconsistent with the Hebrew text (for example, “…you will die the death…” of Gen 2:17) and erroneously translates Heb. “gan” as paradisus (to match the Septuagint, against the Hebrew) versus elsewhere in the Vulgate Jerome properly translates gan as Latin “hortus”. There are many, many, many examples like this. But again, you don’t have to take my word for it or even Jerome’s.

Perhaps Jerome did think/knew the Septuagint was corrupted, but the point is, he followed it anyway!!! So much the worse for Jerome and 1,000 years of Christianity! This is one of the primary reasons the reformers and Catholic scholars like Erasmus and and Pius XII wanted new translations and critical editions of Sacred Scripture because once people in the West began to actually learn Hebrew, they realized that the Vulgate was pretty messed up as a purported translation of the Hebrew. As you rightly point out, correcting the Septuagint for the more accurate Hebrew was very controversial at the time and as Jerome’s own translation notes show, he typically deferred to the Septuagint, likely for fear of rocking the biblical boat too much. You can draw your own conclusions about why Jerome tried to make other people like Augustine think he was translating from the Hebrew text–there have been several other forum threads here on this topic.