Why did the RCC change the Bible?

[Country_Wife]

De Hamel says that Jerome’s statement on rejecting the books of the Bible not found in the Hebrew version is in his prologue to the books of Kings.

An English translation of this prologue can be found at the website:
bombaxo.com/blog/?p=218

The part de Hamel had in mind seems to begin in the 6th paragraph:

“This prologue to the Scriptures may be appropriate as a helmeted introduction to all the books which we turn from Hebrew into Latin, so we may be able to know whatever is outside of these is set aside among the apocrypha. Therefore, Wisdom, which is commonly ascribed to Solomon, and the book of Jesus son of Sirach, and Judith and Tobias, and The Shepherd are not in the canon. I have found the First Book of the Maccabees (is) Hebrew, the Second is Greek, which may also be proven by their styles.”
…
“Certainly, if you are incredulous, read the Greek and Latin books and compare (them) with these little works, and wherever you will see among them to differ, ask any one of the Hebrews, in whom you might place better faith, and if he confirms us, I think that you will not consider him a diviner, as he has similarly divined in the very same place with me.”

I suppose that “The Shepherd of Hermas” is meant by “The Shepherd”.

 

[Janet_S]

The explanation which de Hamel gives is that Jerome went through two main phases in his translations; first, he translated from Greek (as you know, the NT and Septuagint are in Greek) and then, around 390, he began to learn Hebrew; for the next 15 years or so, he was studying and then translating from Hebrew. It was as he was doing the Hebrew translations that the differences between the Hebrew language books of the Bible and the books in the Septuagint became increasingly evident to him, and he decided to reject anything not found in Hebrew. (pp. 18-20) De Hamel says that Jerome’s statement on rejecting the books of the Bible not found in the Hebrew version is in his prologue to the books of Kings.

This may be DeHamel’s hypothesis, but where is the evidence from Jerome’s writings to show that he became more and more opposed to the apocrypha as time went by? Actually evidence from his writings show the reverse to be true. Jerome started out regarding the apocrypha with a certain amount of scorn, by his middle years he considered them valuable reading, and by the end valued them as Scripture just as the Church did. Read his prologues and “Against Rufinus” in the order they were written, then decide for yourself:

1. Prologue to the Books of Kings from AD 390:

bombaxo.com/blog/?p=218

1. Prologue to the Books of Solomon from AD 398:

bombaxo.com/blog/?p=231

1. Against Rufinus (see previous post for text) from AD 402
2. Prologues to the Books of Judith and Tobit from between AD 405 and 407:

bombaxo.com/blog/?p=223

bombaxo.com/blog/?p=224

 

[NotWorthy]

And where is the evidence that these books were removed and crept back into the Old Testament through the years. Anyone who considers this to be true has NO idea of how much the Catholic Church treasures the Scriptures.

 

[vern_humphrey]

And where is the evidence that these books were removed and crept back into the Old Testament through the years. Anyone who considers this to be true has NO idea of how much the Catholic Church treasures the Scriptures.

Nor any idea how the Church works. Jerome, for example, had no authority to establish the canon of the Bible – he could only recommend.

The very early Church used the Septaugent – Shirach, for example was used to teach morality from the very earliest days. And that has remained the canon of the Old Testament since.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Wasn’t 3/4 of the bible (the old testament) “settled” approx. 300 - 400 years before Christ was born, by the jews? And does anyone know the age (date written) and location (of the mss.now) of the oldest copy of the LXX that was quoted by anyone in the New Testament? Just curious.
God Bless,
Benaiah

There were NO Jews until some 300 years AFTER Christ.
Iudaeus, the Latin word commonly translated as Jew, is more correctly translated as ‘Judahite’, or member of the clan of Judah, or Judean, or subject of the state of Judea.
They had no name for their religion: they were faithful to G_d, and all others wrre pagans. In refcering to the Old Covenant, they associated themselves with the house of Israel, and referred to themselves as 'the Children of Israel. This is the nearest they came to naming their religion.

 

[NotWorthy]

There were NO Jews until some 300 years AFTER Christ.
Iudaeus, the Latin word commonly translated as Jew, is more correctly translated as ‘Judahite’, or member of the clan of Judah, or Judean, or subject of the state of Judea.
They had no name for their religion: they were faithful to G_d, and all others wrre pagans. In refcering to the Old Covenant, they associated themselves with the house of Israel, and referred to themselves as 'the Children of Israel. This is the nearest they came to naming their religion.

Ok…

What we refer to as Jews were around at the time. They were the tribes of Judah and Benjamin that remained in the Southern Kingdom after the 10 northern tribes broke off.

Be that as it may, the Jewish Canon was closed no EARLIER than 90 AD. Some poeple claim the Council of Jamnia in 90AD closed the Canon. Others claim there never was a council of Jamnia and that the OT Canon was closed around 900 AD. But there is no evidence that the Canon was closed before the time of Christ.

For instance, the Sadducees felt that the first five books (the Pentatauch) made up the Scriptures. When Jesus argues Scriptures with them, He only uses these five books to prove His point.

Later on, when discussing Scriptures with the Pharisees (who had a OT similar to the KJV today) Jesus argues using these Scriptures.

If I’m correct, the Essenes had a few other books included in their Scritpures.

 

[Country_Wife]

This may be DeHamel’s hypothesis, but where is the evidence from Jerome’s writings to show that he became more and more opposed to the apocrypha as time went by? Actually evidence from his writings show the reverse to be true.

Great info, Janet S! This is just the sort of thing that I hoped would come to light once we examined all of de Hamel’s book, rather than a few carefully-selected paragraphs.

BTW, The Book serves as an excellent rebuttal for the oft-repeated claim that the Bible was somehow kept out of the hands of lay people; by showing just what was involved in making a Bible before the days of printing, de Hamel makes it clear that you couldn’t just “run off a second copy”; however, early Bibles have extensive marginal notations and tables indicating the lectionary readings, and notes on readings to be used in preaching to different audiences and on different topics. So it’s hard to defend the claim that the words of the Scriptures were kept secret from non-priests.

 

[inthecloud]

QUOTE]What we refer to as Jews were around at the time. They were the tribes of Judah and Benjamin that remained in the Southern Kingdom after the 10 northern tribes broke off.

This is a good question, there were several Jewish sects.

Be that as it may, the Jewish Canon was closed no EARLIER than 90 AD. Some poeple claim the Council of Jamnia in 90AD closed the Canon. Others claim there never was a council of Jamnia and that the OT Canon was closed around 900 AD. But there is no evidence that the Canon was closed before the time of Christ.

The Pharisees closed the canon using Hillel teachings around the year 400 BC. But every now and them they allowed new books into the Bible. There was a shul (not a council) at Jabné in 90AD that discussed adding new Books (Lamentations, Song of Solomon if I remember) and ignored the NT books and the deuterocanons becasue they were not in Hebrew.
To the suprise of other Jewish sects they just before Jesus birth adopted books like Esther, Daniel and Qohelet. Books that many Jews tought as false teachings.

For instance, the Sadducees felt that the first five books (the Pentatauch) made up the Scriptures. When Jesus argues Scriptures with them, He only uses these five books to prove His point.

True. And they not believe in the resurrection of the dead on in the after life too.

Later on, when discussing Scriptures with the Pharisees (who had a OT similar to the KJV today) Jesus argues using these Scriptures.

I think he quoted some deuteros too.

If I’m correct, the Essenes had a few other books included in their Scritpures.

They had a open canon that is protoseptuagint in some books, protomasorietic in other and had Wisdom, Ben Sirach, Maccabees, Henoch and other books. Some people also have hinted they even got the Gospel of Mark and some of Pauls letters but that is not true. Since the Esenes is the Jewish sect closer to the Early Christians and they were rarely critiziced by Jesus in the Gospels that is for me telling.

 

[Ignatius]

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.

And Jesus said to Christopher de Hamel, I give you the power to ? Oh, no I guess that wasn’t Christopher de Hamel, what it?

Also, Mr deHamel’s bias is getting in the way of what should be his academic objectivity. The council of Jamnia, which is what he refers to when the deutero canonical books were removed from the Jewish list, wasn’t an official council and it wasn’t binding. Also, the Christian canon closed with the death of John which happened prior to the council of Jsmnia.

 

[Chellow]

When any one tells me that the Catholic Church changed the bible, I inquire when. Most times they say during the council of Trent. I then inquire if they knew when the Orthodox broke from the Catholic Church, usually they don’t know. I point out that was about the year 1054, many years before Trent, and that the Orthodox have the same books if not more then the Catholic Church.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

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.

None of that is news, or controversial - why make it so ?​

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

The explanation which de Hamel gives is that Jerome went through two main phases in his translations; first, he translated from Greek (as you know, the NT and Septuagint are in Greek) and then, around 390, he began to learn Hebrew; for the next 15 years or so, he was studying and then translating from Hebrew. It was as he was doing the Hebrew translations that the differences between the Hebrew language books of the Bible and the books in the Septuagint became increasingly evident to him, and he decided to reject anything not found in Hebrew. (pp. 18-20) De Hamel says that Jerome’s statement on rejecting the books of the Bible not found in the Hebrew version is in his prologue to the books of Kings.

Hi Country Wife,
It’s been some time now since I was cast out of CCF, and thus lost touch.
How are you keeping?
As for Jerome, and the NT, what is said about the NT is true to an extent, but only if ALL four Gospels are excluded from the statement.
In his own preface, St Jerome says that he took the Old Latin Gospels as they stood, and only made to them such alterations as were necessary to correct ant substantial differences between them and the best available Greek.
Thus St Jerome’s Gospels are still essentially the Old Latin, dating back to AD 200, and the commission of Victorius Africanus Papa, who die AD 198.

It’s interesting to note that apparently neither Steadfast nor any of the other posters waving the banner of “de Hamel, noted Bible authority” seem to have actually read his book or even held it in their hands. If they had, surely we would be getting this information from them. But Jerome’s reasons for rejecting the deuterocanonical books just boil down to the same old argument about the deuterocanonicals which is familiar from the Reformation, and it has been made and rebutted many, many times since then. And these arguments have never been accepted by the church. It is quite interesting, in fact, to note that the Reformers who rejected the deuterocanon had not made a new discovery about these books which suddenly required their rejection; Jerome had known it, and his comments about it apparently had been part of the Vulgate for centuries.

I too have not read de Hamel, but if he is implying that St Jerome was inclined to ‘second division’ the deutero canonicals, I can see an argument that, as they were witnessed only by LXX, and not by masoretic, then, lacking this witness, they were suspect.
He could not know that they were witnessed by the Dead Sea Scrolls, which support LXX against masoretic.
The responsibility for the doubt on the deutero canonicals then lies with the Jews, not the Christians.
Actually, Enoch and Jubillees should also be in the canon, as there is evidence that Our Lord quoted them, and the Dead Sea Scrolls also.
It seems that they were suppressed by the Jews because they came too close to prophesying Our Lord’s coming.

 

[benaiah]

Hi Country Wife,
The responsibility for the doubt on the deutero canonicals then lies with the Jews, not the Christians.
Actually, Enoch and Jubillees should also be in the canon, as there is evidence that Our Lord quoted them, and the Dead Sea Scrolls also.
It seems that they were suppressed by the Jews because they came too close to prophesying Our Lord’s coming.

Hello Voco,
Are these the same Jews “that didn’t exist for 300 years After Christ” ?
Quote:
There were NO Jews until some 300 years AFTER Christ.
Iudaeus, the Latin word commonly translated as Jew, is more correctly translated as ‘Judahite’, or member of the clan of Judah, or Judean, or subject of the state of Judea.
They had no name for their religion: they were faithful to G_d, and all others wrre pagans. In refcering to the Old Covenant, they associated themselves with the house of Israel, and referred to themselves as 'the Children of Israel. This is the nearest they came to naming their religion.

---

Just clarifying,
Thanks,
Benaiah

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Hello Voco,
Are these the same Jews “that didn’t exist for 300 years After Christ” ?
Quote:
There were NO Jews until some 300 years AFTER Christ.
Iudaeus, the Latin word commonly translated as Jew, is more correctly translated as ‘Judahite’, or member of the clan of Judah, or Judean, or subject of the state of Judea.
They had no name for their religion: they were faithful to G_d, and all others wrre pagans. In refcering to the Old Covenant, they associated themselves with the house of Israel, and referred to themselves as 'the Children of Israel. This is the nearest they came to naming their religion.

---

Just clarifying,
Thanks,
Benaiah

Hi Benaiah,
There has been a practice, and tendency to equate the religion of the Children of Israel with the race of the Hebrews, and to call this conflation: ‘the Jews’
The Jews themselves, by setting themselves apart, encourage this conflation, but it is not an accuracy.
The Hebrews are a race.
They have not always been of a single religion, and are still not so.
There was a time when they were predominantly ‘Children of Israel’ and followers of the teachings of Moses, but that time has passed.
In the few decades following the Passion, many Hebrews accepted Our Lord’s teachings, some fully, as we would judge, as Christians, accepting the divinity of Christ.
Some, less fully, as the promised Messiah, a man, a prophet, a man chosen by G_d, to bring the flock home. These became the Messianist Jews.
Some rejected Our Lord out of hand, as a heretic, and a blasphemer. These are today’s Jews. This decision was taken some time between AD 70 and AD 300, and might have been the result of more than one council, but it is the rejection of Our Lord, which defines the Jews as presently defined.
Islam, which closely resembles Messianistic Judaism, muddied the picture, as it took converts from all three schools, but the result now stands that the Hebrew race is divided between Christian, Islamic, and Judaic culture and belief.
This fact is denied by all three, and this denial is the cause of much of the dispute in the Middle East.
For who are the Palestinians, but Islamic and Christian Hebrews?

 

[benaiah]

Hi Benaiah,
There has been a practice, and tendency to equate the religion of the Children of Israel with the race of the Hebrews, and to call this conflation: ‘the Jews’
The Jews themselves, by setting themselves apart, encourage this conflation, but it is not an accuracy.
The Hebrews are a race.
They have not always been of a single religion, and are still not so.
There was a time when they were predominantly ‘Children of Israel’ and followers of the teachings of Moses, but that time has passed.
In the few decades following the Passion, many Hebrews accepted Our Lord’s teachings, some fully, as we would judge, as Christians, accepting the divinity of Christ.
Some, less fully, as the promised Messiah, a man, a prophet, a man chosen by G_d, to bring the flock home. These became the Messianist Jews.
Some rejected Our Lord out of hand, as a heretic, and a blasphemer. These are today’s Jews. This decision was taken some time between AD 70 and AD 300, and might have been the result of more than one council, but it is the rejection of Our Lord, which defines the Jews as presently defined.
Islam, which closely resembles Messianistic Judaism, muddied the picture, as it took converts from all three schools, but the result now stands that the Hebrew race is divided between Christian, Islamic, and Judaic culture and belief.
This fact is denied by all three, and this denial is the cause of much of the dispute in the Middle East.
For who are the Palestinians, but Islamic and Christian Hebrews?

Hello Voco,
Thanks for your thoughts. I was merely making a reference/clarification to your response to a post I had made in this thread:

Quote:
Originally Posted by benaiah
Wasn’t 3/4 of the bible (the old testament) “settled” approx. 300 - 400 years before Christ was born, by the jews? And does anyone know the age (date written) and location (of the mss.now) of the oldest copy of the LXX that was quoted by anyone in the New Testament? Just curious.
God Bless,
Benaiah

There were NO Jews until some 300 years AFTER Christ.
Iudaeus, the Latin word commonly translated as Jew, is more correctly translated as ‘Judahite’, or member of the clan of Judah, or Judean, or subject of the state of Judea.
They had no name for their religion: they were faithful to G_d, and all others wrre pagans. In refcering to the Old Covenant, they associated themselves with the house of Israel, and referred to themselves as 'the Children of Israel. This is the nearest they came to naming their religion.

---

Best regards,
Dave.

The reference I was using for this was found in Paul’s letter to the Romans:
"What advantage then hath the Jew, or what is the profit of circumcision? Much every way. First indeed, because the words of God were committed to them. "(JEWS). Romans 3:1-2 (Rheims NT)

I understand this is an english translation for the greek word Ioudaios****** thus translated to the word “Jew” about 195 times in the new testament. Just as the Hebrew word YeHudi** is translated as the english word “Jew” about 76 times in the old testament. Even though your response did not answer my post, it was nice to hear your views/opinions of history.

Jesus said, “You people worship what you do not understand; we worship what we understand, because salvation is from the JEWS.”****(John 4:22 New American Bible).

Thanks Voco,
Benaiah
Pax Domini sit semper vo biscum.**

 

[juliamajor]

Wasn’t 3/4 of the bible (the old testament) “settled” approx. 300 - 400 years before Christ was born, by the jews? And does anyone know the age (date written) and location (of the mss.now) of the oldest copy of the LXX that was quoted by anyone in the New Testament? Just curious.
God Bless,
Benaiah

The entire Hebrew Canon was notCanonized in 400 bc. THE Torah and the Prophets were. The writings(which are the parts disputed) weren’t canonized until at least 100 ad.(same say earlier- some say later- all say it as A.D. Not B.C.The Writings were in flux for a long time with many disputes about what should go in there. Some of the criteria were- that should be originally written in Hebrew or aramaic- ; that it was written in Palestine, and that it be written before the book of daniel Oldest LXX are Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus around 4th Century ad. And some bits in the Dead sea scrolls

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Hello Voco,
Thanks for your thoughts. I was merely making a reference/clarification to your response to a post I had made in this thread:

Originally Posted by benaiah
Wasn’t 3/4 of the bible (the old testament) “settled” approx. 300 - 400 years before Christ was born, by the Jews?

Religion is a dangerous subject.
In my view,
possibly a little extreme,
I regard accuracy of terminology to be vital.
Misunderstanding can be disasterous.
Using the name ‘Jew’ to refer to any group of people prior to AD 300 is an inaccuracy. It may be meaningful, in as much as we all know what you think you mean, but it hides misunderstandings. I believe you are referring to followers of Mosaic Law. That is, I believe, the common accepted modern meaning. Clearly, some of the references in the epistles are using that meaning, but this is a lazy misuse of the word, which ALL NT analysts now accept, should be read as ‘Judean’

And does anyone know the age (date written) and location (of the mss. now) of the oldest copy of the LXX

LXX, septuagint, the seventy, actually, the seventy-two: Alexander the great, as part of his conquest of Egypt, installed in Alexandria, a great university, commonly known as the Great Library.
He ordained that every document in the known world be translated into his native Greek, and stored in the Great Library. To this effect, he commanded that six elders from each of the twelve tribes of Israel, should travel to Alexandria, and translate the Pentateuch, that is, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy, into Greek. These seventy-two sicned off the translation, and the Latin number, LXXII, became LXX, the Septuagint. This was later expanded to include all the old testament we now have, including the deuteros, and some more.

that was quoted by anyone in the New Testament? Just curious.
God Bless,
Benaiah

There were NO Jews until some 300 years AFTER Christ.
Iudaeus, the Latin word commonly translated as Jew, is more correctly translated as ‘Judahite’, or member of the clan of Judah, or Judean, or subject of the state of Judea.
They had no name for their religion: they were faithful to G_d, and all others wrre pagans. In refcering to the Old Covenant, they associated themselves with the house of Israel, and referred to themselves as 'the Children of Israel. This is the nearest they came to naming their religion.

---

Best regards,
Dave.

The reference I was using for this was found in Paul’s letter to the Romans:
"What advantage then hath the Jew, or what is the profit of circumcision? Much every way. First indeed, because the words of God were committed to them. "(JEWS). Romans 3:1-2 (Rheims NT)

I understand this is an English translation for the Greek word Ioudaios********
Ioudaios is just the Greek version of the Latin word ‘Iudaeus’, and has exactly the same meaning. It even has the same pronunciation.

thus translated to the word “Jew” about 195 times in the new testament. Just as the Hebrew word YeHudi**

is translated as the English word “Jew” about 76 times in the old testament. Even though your response did not answer my post, it was nice to hear your views/opinions of history.
As I said, the Jews have an agenda for making that interpretation, for it is their POLITICAL aim to conflate Judaism with Hebrewishness.

Jesus said, “You people worship what you do not understand; we worship what we understand, because salvation is from the JEWS.”****

(John 4:22 New American Bible).

Thanks Voco,
Benaiah
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.

 

[inthecloud]

When any one tells me that the Catholic Church changed the bible, I inquire when. Most times they say during the council of Trent. I then inquire if they knew when the Orthodox broke from the Catholic Church, usually they don’t know. I point out that was about the year 1054, many years before Trent, and that the Orthodox have the same books if not more then the Catholic Church.

And the Coptics broke with Rome in 450AD, more that 1000 yers before Trent and also have those books and some more.
So much for the CC adding books to the Bible at Trent!
When somebody post that the CC added books to the Bible at Trent I say, shame on you! I did not know that bearing false wittness was no longer a sin. That stops people in their tracks.

Look, one can argue for days if the protestants were OK or not to adopt the Pharisees palestinian canon and remove the deuterocanonicals books from the Bible. Another thing is to bear false witness saying that the CC added that heinous books (that they have not read of course) to the Bible when is clear that all first generation Christian Churches had them and despite the missgiving of some Church Fathers, like St Melito and St Jerome, most ECFs not only used the books but also commented them and did not object to them.
Any one that charges that the CC added those books to the Bible is of course lying.
I do not like to being lied by people who want to “save me”. About the Bible or about science (I strongly dislike creationists).

 

[Finkelstein]

I find it fascinating that Protestantism appears to place its faith ultimately in academia and the wisdom of man, instead of Jesus Christ and the Teaching Magisterium of His Church.

Protestants clearly yearn for authority too and they seem to suggest it either comes from direct divine revelation (a whole other subject) or through academia.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

I find it fascinating that Protestantism appears to place its faith ultimately in academia and the wisdom of man, instead of Jesus Christ and the Teaching Magisterium of His Church.

Protestants clearly yearn for authority too and they seem to suggest it either comes from direct divine revelation (a whole other subject) or through academia.

Dear Finkelstein,
You cannot define protestantism by what it is, only by what it is not.
There are nearly as many kinds of protestantism as there are protestants.
The root of protestantism is an excess of zeal by the Magisterium in defining what Catholicity is/was.
Our Lord permitted degrees of doubt on subjects he did not consider to be vital, the Magisterium did not. That was, and to some extent is the root cause of protestantism.
If Catholicity wants protestantism to return to the fold, then the Magisterium needs to relax more the permission to doubt.
It has gone a long way down that path, but there is much further to go.
I for one would love to return, but my doubts as yet cannot be overcome.