Why did the RCC change the Bible?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Steadfast
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Dr. Christopher de Hamel is a recognized authority in the field of ancient manuscripts. He is Gaylord Donnelley Fellow Librarian of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, UK.

His academic bona fides are as follows:

B.A. (Otago, New Zealand), D.Phil. (Oxon), Hon.Litt.D. (St. John’s Minnesota), Hon.Litt.D (Otago), F.S.A., F.R.Hist.S.
One reason (as this writer points out) that Jerome and others have questioned the deuteros is because of their inability to find originals which were written in Hebrew. This was one justification (though anti-Christianity was the reason) for the Jews excluding them in 90AD. The point is moot since the finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls reveals earlier copies of the deuteros in Hebrew.

The Catholic Church has simply always, from the beginning, used the Greek Septuagint because it is what Jesus and the apostles used and quoted from often.
 
Just wondering…

Do you guys rent the equipment you use to move the goalposts or do you own it, because if you rent, I think a cost-benefit analysis would reveal that, as often as you do it, you’d be better off with a decent lease plan.
So next time you start a thread be sure you put the goalposts in the right place to begin with. Maybe somebody here will even lend you the equipment.
 
So, this is what you come back with when you have nothing?
It’s what I come back with when I am frustrated by the inanity of people refusing to interact with things I’ve said, preferring to change the terms of the argument constantly.

It’s like herding cats, or nailing Jell-O to a wall.
 
It’s what I come back with when I am frustrated by the inanity of people refusing to interact with things I’ve said, preferring to change the terms of the argument constantly.

It’s like herding cats, or nailing Jell-O to a wall.
I’ve been THAT inconsistent?!?
 
This post reminds of the KJV-onlyists version: “if English was good enough for Jesus, it’s good enough for me!!!”
😛
Years back my MIL stated she only used the Old King James Bible -no New King James with modern English (she’s Pentecostal). When I asked why she stated it was the original text of the Bible. I had to surpress my laughter. I told her, “Uh Joan, Jesus didn’t speak old English.”:rolleyes:
 
And, evidently Luther was in very good company, Jerome having held this opinion before him.

And here is the difference between them:

Where Luther is often charged (falsely) with omitting books from the Bible, Jerome actually did it.
Ah, such an unwise little man. I bet you think your soo smart. Well, guess what? St. Jerome isn’t the only Church Father! Come as a shocker to you? Bet it did. Shows how much you know about Church history. But on point. As has been stated, many times over, St. Jerome defered to the Papal authority of the POPE and accepted the 7 books even though he diagreed with them. The Magisterium declared that the Septuagint is the original Hebrew Scriptures quoted by Jesus in the New Testament and that any detractions from the established list of books in the canon is heretical. which is exactly what Luther did. Which is why, among other reasons, he was excommunicated.
 
Years back my MIL stated she only used the Old King James Bible -no New King James with modern English (she’s Pentecostal). When I asked why she stated it was the original text of the Bible. I had to surpress my laughter. I told her, “Uh Joan, Jesus didn’t speak old English.”:rolleyes:
More specifically, The KJV is in ‘Early Modern English’. 😃

At least, this matter just goes to show Saint Jerome (or any saint for that matter) are humans, not just some lifeless statues standing on a pedestal.

The same is true for scholars. No matter what or how many their degrees might be or wherever they got them, even scholars can make miscalculations.

I guess the differences between Saint Jerome and Luther is:
Luther is German.😃
Luther is a monk while Jerome is a hermit who was made a cardinal.
Luther started a new church with his heresy, while Jerome stayed faithful to the Church.

I guess Saint Jerome IS revolving right now while seeing our discussion here. 😃

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Saint Jerome, pray for us!
 
It’s what I come back with when I am frustrated by the inanity of people refusing to interact with things I’ve said, preferring to change the terms of the argument constantly.

It’s like herding cats, or nailing Jell-O to a wall.
I too am frustrated. I am frustrated that after multiple requests you will still not point us to an authoritative canon that does not include the deuterocanonicals. That would give you instant victory, and according to your thread title, you must believe such a canon exists, yet you will not show it to us. So stop talking about cats and jello and show us this authoritative canon that does not include the deuterocanonicals.
 
I too am frustrated. I am frustrated that after multiple requests you will still not point us to an authoritative canon that does not include the deuterocanonicals. That would give you instant victory, and according to your thread title, you must believe such a canon exists, yet you will not show it to us. So stop talking about cats and jello and show us this authoritative canon that does not include the deuterocanonicals.
When you provide me with proof that Jerome did in fact include the OT Deuteros when he translated the Bible into Latin, I will happily satisfy you.

I have provided an authoritative source indicating that he did not and all I have heard from you all is handwringing about how even Jerome isn’t infallible and a reference to something he wrote long before he even got around to doing the work and his opinion had changed.

It’s my thread, I started it, and all requests for “satisfaction” take a back seat to answering the contention of the OP.

This is, or should be, messageboard SOP.
 
I guess the differences between Saint Jerome and Luther is:
Luther is German.😃
What is this supposed to mean? Being German somehow disqualifies him from having an opinion or being intelligent? Typical Roman arrogance.
Luther is a monk while Jerome is a hermit who was made a cardinal.
Whoopdy-doo. Do you know that the idea was floated (by no less than Cardinal Cajetan I believe) to give Luther a Cardinal’s hat if it would shut him up? With Zwingli it went beyond discussion, the offer was actually made.
Luther started a new church with his heresy, while Jerome stayed faithful to the Church.
But how “faithful” was Jerome really if he manifestly disregarded what you present as the constant opinion of the Church that the Deuteros formed a necessary part of the OT Canon?
 
When you provide me with proof that Jerome did in fact include the OT Deuteros when he translated the Bible into Latin, I will happily satisfy you.

I have provided an authoritative source indicating that he did not and all I have heard from you all is handwringing about how even Jerome isn’t infallible and a reference to something he wrote long before he even got around to doing the work and his opinion had changed.

It’s my thread, I started it, and all requests for “satisfaction” take a back seat to answering the contention of the OP.

This is, or should be, messageboard SOP.
But what you’ve provided is an authoritative source with no proof. No where else does it say the Vulgate did not include the deutero’s.

Here’s a quote from an anti-catholic site on the history of the Bible, and even they acknowledge that Jerome included the deutero’s even though he questioned there validity.
In 382 AD, the early church father Jerome translated the New Testament from its original Greek into Latin. This translation became known as the “Latin Vulgate”, (“Vulgate” meaning “vulgar” or “common”). He put a note next to the Apocrypha Books, stating that he did not know whether or not they were inspired scripture, or just Jewish historical writings which accompanied the Old Testament.
Code:
 The Apocrypha was kept as part of virtually every Bible scribed or printed        from these early days until just 120 years ago, in the mid-1880’s,        when it was removed from Protestant Bibles. Up until the 1880’s, however,        every Christian… Protestant or otherwise… embraced the Apocrypha        as part of the Bible, though debate continued as to whether or not the Apocrypha        was inspired.
You’ll find the full article here:
 
The point is Steadfast, when all the world thinks that something is correct, and then some expert claims they are wrong, he needs to provide some proof of his findings.

Galileo had to prove that gravity was equal on all objects by taking a 5 pound ball and a 10 pound ball to the top of the tower of Pisa
and dropping them, before people would believe him. (Man, I hope I got the facts straight on that analogy. If not, at least accept the point I’m trying to make).
 
But what you’ve provided is an authoritative source with no proof. No where else does it say the Vulgate did not include the deutero’s.

Here’s a quote from an anti-catholic site on the history of the Bible, and even they acknowledge that Jerome included the
All this proves is that Catholic Apologists have been so successful in selling an absolutely unproven proposition as historical fact that others have picked it up as well.

The part you quoted is pretty garbled anyway. It goes from dating Jerome’s translation of the NT in 382 (which is when he began his revision of existing Laitn NT texts) to indicating his opinion of the OT Deuteros, something he didn’t get around to for another twenty years.

Hardly ironclad, much less authoritative.
 
The point is Steadfast, when all the world thinks that something is correct, and then some expert claims they are wrong, he needs to provide some proof of his findings.
Great, wonderful…

Dr. de Hamel is an expert in the field. He doesn’t need to prove his claim until another scholar refutes it.

For the purposes of this discussion, I am not presenting his conclusion as even necessarily and absolutely correct. All I am doing is offering it as the opinion of a noted scholar and asking for something similar to the contrary. I am not trying to magisterially resolve a millenia-old debate, I’m just asking a question.

Frankly, I don’t even care if he’s right, I just have heard so often about how Luther left books out of the Bible (which he didn’t) and how Jerome was prevailed upon by the Pope to include books he didn’t want to include that I found the opinion very interesting.

If nothing else, it would appear that the common Catholic apologetic contention that Jerome did include them is incapable of verification and ought to be abandoned as a technique.

But then, lying about Luther is a technique that ought to be abandoned as well and I don’t think that’s going to happen soon.

At the very least I have had the pleasure of seeing you all squirm.
 
When you provide me with proof that Jerome did in fact include the OT Deuteros when he translated the Bible into Latin, I will happily satisfy you.

I have provided an authoritative source indicating that he did not and all I have heard from you all is handwringing about how even Jerome isn’t infallible and a reference to something he wrote long before he even got around to doing the work and his opinion had changed.

It’s my thread, I started it, and all requests for “satisfaction” take a back seat to answering the contention of the OP.

This is, or should be, messageboard SOP.
Your thread title does not refer to Jerome’s bible, it refers to “the Bible”. That can only mean the authoritative canon of the bible. The Church Councils which have pronounced the canon have always included the deuterocanonicals. You continue to insist, quite incorrectly, that Jerome’s bible is somehow equivalent to these Councils. You are quite simply wrong. And furthermore, you know you are wrong. Otherwise you would provide the information on an authoritative canon which does not include the deuterocanonicals, and that would be the end of the discussion. You would have proved your point. But you do not provide this information because this information does not exist. So you keep harping about Jerome’s bible as if it had the same weight as Church Councils. Well, you can make that claim all you want, and it will not change the actual workings of authority in the Church one iota.

So I repeat my request: show us an authoritative canon of scripture that does not include the deuterocanonicals. Because, like it or not, that is all we Catholics will recognize.
 
But how “faithful” was Jerome really
Let’s hear it from St Jerome:

JEROME’S LETTER TO POPE DAMASUS, THE BISHOP OF ROME contains the following: (letter # 15 - This letter, written in AD 376 or 377, illustrates Jerome’s attitude towards the see of Rome which was held by Pope Damasus at that time.)

"…As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built ! This is the house where alone the paschal lamb can be rightly eaten. This is the ark of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails. … He that gathers not with you scatters…"
 
THE CANON OF THE OLD TESTAMENT DURING THE FOURTH, AND FIRST HALF OF THE FIFTH, CENTURY

In this period the position of the deuterocanonical literature is no longer as secure as in the primitive age…
The influence of Origen’s and Athanasius’s restricted canon naturally spread to the West. St. Hilary of Poitiers and Rufinus followed their footsteps, excluding the deuteros from canonical rank in theory, but admitting them in practice. The latter styles them “ecclesiastical” books, but in authority unequal to the other Scriptures. St. Jerome cast his weighty suffrage on the side unfavourable to the disputed books… 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.

But while eminent scholars and theorists were thus depreciating the additional writings, the official attitude of the Latin Church, always favourable to them, kept the majestic tenor of its way. Two documents of capital importance in the history of the canon constitute the first formal utterance of papal authority on the subject. The first is the so-called “Decretal of Gelasius”, de recipiendis et non recipiendis libris, the essential part of which is now generally attributed to a synod convoked by Pope Damasus in the year 382. The other is the Canon of Innocent I, sent in 405 to a Gallican bishop in answer to an inquiry. Both contain all the deuterocanonicals, without any distinction, and are identical with the catalogue of Trent. The African Church, always a staunch supporter of the contested books, found itself in entire accord with Rome on this question. Its ancient version, the Vetus Latina (less correctly the Itala), had admitted all the Old Testament Scriptures. St. Augustine seems to theoretically recognize degrees of inspiration; in practice he employs protos and deuteros without any discrimination whatsoever. Moreover in his “De Doctrinâ Christianâ” he enumerates the components of the complete Old Testament. The Synod of Hippo (393) and the three of Carthage (393, 397, and 419), in which, doubtless, Augustine was the leading spirit, found it necessary to deal explicitly with the question of the Canon, and drew up identical lists from which no sacred books are excluded. These councils base their canon on tradition and liturgical usage. For the Spanish Church valuable testimony is found in the work of the heretic Priscillian, “Liber de Fide et Apocryphis”; it supposes a sharp line existing between canonical and uncanonical works, and that the Canon takes in all the deuteros.

D. THE CANON OF THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM THE MIDDLE OF THE FIFTH TO THE CLOSE OF THE SEVENTH CENTURY

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 new version of the Old Testament (the 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. On the other hand, the Oriental Church imported a Western authority which had canonized the disputed books, viz., the decree of Carthage, and from this time there is an increasing tendency among the Greeks to place the deuteros on the same level with the others…

…Continue to next post
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top