Why did the RCC change the Bible?

[Steadfast]

Jerome found that the Hebrew scriptures did not include the books of Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, I-II Maccabees and Baruch, all of which were in the common Greek translation. He had already prepared Latin texts of Tobit and Judith from Greek. However, Jerome now eliminated these books from his definitive edition of the Old Testament and he downgraded them as apocryphal. The word ‘apocrypha’ means the ‘hidden’ books, texts to be put aside from the official Bible. He similarly questioned the authenticity of some parts of other books, including Esther 10:4 to 16:24 and chapters 13 and 14 of Daniel. Jerome used the Hebrew texts as his standard , and rejected any parts of the Bible not found there. He partially rearranged the sequence of the books of the Old testament, to bring it in line, more or less, with the order of the Hebrew Bible.

Here then, follows the great irony of Jerome’s Latin Bible. The supreme value of Jerome’s scholarship as editor lay in his skill in assessing textual authenticity and in eliminating books and passages which he deemed inauthentic. Jerome produced a Bible which was a model of scholarly caution and care. His judgments still carry weight. However, throughout all periods, members of the Bible-reading public have always been reluctant to sacrifice any familiar passage of scripture in bouts of textual spring-cleaning, however justified. Any sacred text is more likely to accumulate additions than to lose parts which might be authentic. To incorporate passages of unproven authenticity always seems less fearsome than to risk eliminating what might be divine text.

Jerome’s Bible, pruned against the Hebrew original, proved too purified for public acceptance. At some early stage, as it came to be copied and recopied and as it entered the life of the Latin-speaking Church, all the rejected books and passages found their way back in again. The position becomes even worse. Jerome’s saintly bones would revolve in their reliquaries if they could have seen what happened next. Not only were the apocryphal texts reinstated into their old places, but the form in which they re-entered the Bible was none other that that of the archaic Old Latin, for Jerome had allowed them no other. Texts like Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, I-II Maccabees and others slipped back into Jerome’s edition, in exactly the wording of a translation so corrupt that it had inspired Pope Damasus to appoint Jerome in the first place. Good portions of the Old Latin survive for no other reason than that Jerome utterly excluded them.

From “The Book: A History of the Bible” by Christopher De Hamel, Phaidon Press Limited, 2001

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.

 

[Atreyu]

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.

Who has the power to bind and loose? Jerome? Or the Catholic Church?

 

[PaulDupre]

Jerome was not a pope nor was he a member of the magisterium (the teaching authority of the Church). He was a theologian - brilliant yes, but not authoritative. The canon of scripture was decided in Church councils guided by the Holy Spirit, not by the opinions of one man.

It was the Protestants that removed the dueuterocanonicals from the Old Testament because these books went against their flawed beliefs.

God love you,
Paul

 

[DShreffler]

I take great solice in the words in Sirach. My understanding is that LUTHER was the one who removed these from the “Lutheran” Bible.
Knowledgable Catholics, please weigh in!

 

[Chris_LaRock]

I’m not too sure about if the RCC changed the bible or not, but I noticed that ‘penance’ is talked about in Catholic bibles in places where Non-Catholic bibles say ‘repentance’ or ‘repent’. I have a few Greek Interlinear books with the original Greek form of the New Testament, and the use of the word ‘penance’ is inconsitant with the original Greek word used.

Strongs # 3340 metanoeo - repent
Strongs # 3341 metanoia - repentance

Mat 3:2 And saying: Do penance: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. (DRB)

Mat 3:2 And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. (KJV)

Mat 4:17 From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say: Do penance, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. (DRB)

Mat 4:17 From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. (KJV)

Luk 3:3 And he came into all the country about the Jordan, preaching the baptism of penance for the remission of sins. (DRB)

Luk 3:3 And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins; (KJV)

Luk 13:3 No, I say to you: but unless you shall do penance, you shall all likewise perish. (DRB)

Luk 13:3 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish. (KJV)

Luk 16:30 But he said: No, father Abraham: but if one went to them from the dead, they will do penance. (DRB)

Luk 16:30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. (KJV)

Luk 17:3 Take heed to yourselves. If thy brother sin against thee, reprove him: and if he do penance, forgive him. (DRB)

Luk 17:3 Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him. (KJV)

Act 2:38 But Peter said to them: Do penance: and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins. And you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. (DRB)

Act 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. (KJV)

Act 8:22 Do penance therefore for this thy wickedness: and pray to God, that perhaps this thought of thy heart may be forgiven thee. (DRB)

Act 8:22 Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee. (KJV)

Act 17:30 And God indeed having winked at the times of this ignorance, now declareth unto men that all should every where do penance. (DRB)

Act 17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: (KJV)

Act 26:20 But to them first that are at Damascus and at Jerusalem, and unto all the country of Judea, and to the Gentiles did I preach, that they should do penance and turn to God, doing works worthy of penance. (DRB)

Act 26:20 But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance. (KJV)

Rev 2:5 Be mindful therefore from whence
thou art fallen: and do penance and do the first works. Or else I come to thee and will move thy candlestick out of its place, except thou do penance. (DRB)

Rev 2:5 Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent. (KJV)

Rev 2:16 In like manner do penance. If not, I will come to thee quickly and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth. (DRB)

Rev 2:16 Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth. (KJV)

Rev 2:21 And I gave her a time that she might do penance: and she will not repent of her fornication.
Rev 2:22 Behold, I will cast her into a bed: and they that commit adultery with her shall be in very great tribulation, except they do penance from their deeds, (DRB)

Rev 2:21 And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not.
Rev 2:22 Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds. (KJV)

Rev 3:3 Have in mind therefore in what manner thou hast received and heard: and observe and do penance: If then thou shalt not watch, I will come to thee as a thief: and thou shalt not know at what hour I will come to thee. (DRB)

Rev 3:3 Remember therefore how thou hast received and heard, and hold fast, and repent. If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee. (KJV)

Rev 3:19 Such as I love, I rebuke and chastise. Be zealous therefore and do penance. (DRB)

Rev 3:19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent. (KJV)

 

[Caesar]

I’m not too sure about if the RCC changed the bible or not, but I noticed that ‘penance’ is talked about in Catholic bibles in places where Non-Catholic bibles say ‘repentance’ or ‘repent’. I have a few Greek Interlinear books with the original Greek form of the New Testament, and the use of the word ‘penance’ is inconsitant with the original Greek word used.

Strongs # 3340 metanoeo - repent
Strongs # 3341 metanoia - repentance

Mat 3:2 And saying: Do penance: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. (DRB)

Mat 3:2 And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. (KJV)

Mat 4:17 From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say: Do penance, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. (DRB)

Mat 4:17 From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. (KJV)

Luk 3:3 And he came into all the country about the Jordan, preaching the baptism of penance for the remission of sins. (DRB)

Luk 3:3 And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins; (KJV)

Luk 13:3 No, I say to you: but unless you shall do penance, you shall all likewise perish. (DRB)

Luk 13:3 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish. (KJV)

Luk 16:30 But he said: No, father Abraham: but if one went to them from the dead, they will do penance. (DRB)

Luk 16:30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. (KJV)

Luk 17:3 Take heed to yourselves. If thy brother sin against thee, reprove him: and if he do penance, forgive him. (DRB)

Luk 17:3 Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him. (KJV)

Act 2:38 But Peter said to them: Do penance: and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins. And you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. (DRB)

Act 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. (KJV)

Act 8:22 Do penance therefore for this thy wickedness: and pray to God, that perhaps this thought of thy heart may be forgiven thee. (DRB)

Act 8:22 Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee. (KJV)

Act 17:30 And God indeed having winked at the times of this ignorance, now declareth unto men that all should every where do penance. (DRB)

Act 17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: (KJV)

Act 26:20 But to them first that are at Damascus and at Jerusalem, and unto all the country of Judea, and to the Gentiles did I preach, that they should do penance and turn to God, doing works worthy of penance. (DRB)

Act 26:20 But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance. (KJV)

Rev 2:5 Be mindful therefore from whence
thou art fallen: and do penance and do the first works. Or else I come to thee and will move thy candlestick out of its place, except thou do penance. (DRB)

Rev 2:5 Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent. (KJV)

Rev 2:16 In like manner do penance. If not, I will come to thee quickly and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth. (DRB)

Rev 2:16 Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth. (KJV)

Rev 2:21 And I gave her a time that she might do penance: and she will not repent of her fornication.
Rev 2:22 Behold, I will cast her into a bed: and they that commit adultery with her shall be in very great tribulation, except they do penance from their deeds, (DRB)

Rev 2:21 And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not.
Rev 2:22 Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds. (KJV)

Rev 3:3 Have in mind therefore in what manner thou hast received and heard: and observe and do penance: If then thou shalt not watch, I will come to thee as a thief: and thou shalt not know at what hour I will come to thee. (DRB)

Rev 3:3 Remember therefore how thou hast received and heard, and hold fast, and repent. If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee. (KJV)

Rev 3:19 Such as I love, I rebuke and chastise. Be zealous therefore and do penance. (DRB)

Rev 3:19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent. (KJV)

Both the KJV and the Latin Vulgate are translations from the original Greek texts. The DRB is a translation of the Latin.

In terms of which is a better translation from the Greek, it is undoubtable the Vulgate, considering the close proximity of Latin and Greek, the knowlege of the Church Fathers who made the original translations into Latin of Greek (many were Greek themselves, as opposed to the Englishmen who translated the KJB).

 

[Veritas41]

The Catholic Church didn’t *change *the Bible – it *determined *which books went into it!

St. Jerome was an individual with no authority to determine on his own what was inspired Scripture and what wasn’t. All he could do was make an educated guess. Before the canon of Scripture was determined in the late 4th century, individual bishops drew up their own lists of books they considered inspired, but they were not definitive lists —they didn’t always agree with each other. That’s why the Magisterium of the Church finally had to weigh in on the issue. The Synod of Rome in 386 was called by Pope Damasus I and the books deemed canonical in that council are identical to the canon we have today. Later in 393 and 397 in Councils at Carthage and Hippo, the same books determined to be canonical at the Synod of Rome were declared canonical. These were regional councils not binding on the whole church, but in 405 Pope Innocent I affirmed the canon determined by these councils, and that canon has never changed. Even though St. Jerome initially had misgivings about the deuterocanonical books (he was heavily influenced by Jewish Scripture scholars – and Jewish rabbis had rejected the Greek Septuagint, which contained the deuterocanonicals), he did submit to the authority of the church to determine the canon.

The canon determined in the 4th century was reaffirmed at later ecumenical councils (binding on the whole church ) such as the Council of Florence in the 15th century and Trent, which solemnly defined the canon in reaction to the actions of the Protestant “Reformers” who removed the deuterocanonicals from the OT. Trent never “added” the books then (as I had always been taught when I was a Protestant). This is easy to verify because the Eastern Orthodox have the deuterocanonicals in their OT (including a few extra books even the Catholic bible doesn’t have), and they split from Rome 500 years before Trent.

You can check this out in secular sources as well. Protestants were the one to alter the canon of Scripture, not Catholics.

 

[Mystophilus]

Christopher de Hamel is a well-known and widely-respected scholar of medieval texts. He is also merely human.

“Jerome now eliminated these books… At some early stage, as it came to be copied and recopied and as it entered the life of the Latin-speaking Church, all the rejected books and passages found their way back in again… Jerome’s saintly bones would revolve in their reliquaries if they could have seen what happened next.”

The books and passages which Jerome questioned were entered into the Vulgate by Jerome, as his prologues and later comments clearly demonstrate. Jerome was uncertain about their inclusion, but his patron demanded them, and so he included them.

The Roman Catholic Church did not insert those texts. However, at the Council of Trent, in 1546, they did define those texts as part of their canon because they had been in use for more than 1200 years, and because the early Protestant Reformers had rejected them, following the reservations of both Jerome and the Jews regarding their origins.

Note also that the Orthodox Church have never bothered with a Latin translation of the Bible, and also read those other texts in their churches, as they have been doing for 2000 years.

 

[Mystophilus]

Both the KJV and the Latin Vulgate are translations from the original Greek texts. The DRB is a translation of the Latin.

In terms of which is a better translation from the Greek, it is undoubtable the Vulgate, considering the close proximity of Latin and Greek, the knowlege of the Church Fathers who made the original translations into Latin of Greek (many were Greek themselves, as opposed to the Englishmen who translated the KJB).

While the KJV is certainly not known for the purity of its translation, its usage of ‘repent’ for μετανοεω and and ‘repentance’ for μετανοια is closer to the Greek. The DRB is evidently pursuing a more free translation, on the basis that penance should follow “thinking again”, which is what repentance and μετανοια both mean.

As regards the translators, I presume that you mean the translators of the other early versions of the Bible into Latin, because, at least insofar as I am aware, Jerome worked alone.

 

[Steadfast_love]

Jerome found that the Hebrew scriptures did not include the books

Dr. Hamil is technicaly correct, but his point is academic. For all practical purposes Christians should be content with translations of what Jesus and the early church were reading (LXX) and preaching (NT) even if the oldest copies are in Greek rather than Hebrew.

Come to think of it… I draw great inspiration from Archbishop Fulton Sheen and he’s only on VHS!

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Jerome found that the Hebrew scriptures did not include the books of Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, I-II Maccabees and Baruch, all of which were in the common Greek translation. He had already prepared Latin texts of Tobit and Judith from Greek. However, Jerome now eliminated these books from his definitive edition of the Old Testament and he downgraded them as apocryphal. The word ‘apocrypha’ means the ‘hidden’ books, texts to be put aside from the official Bible. He similarly questioned the authenticity of some parts of other books, including Esther 10:4 to 16:24 and chapters 13 and 14 of Daniel. Jerome used the Hebrew texts as his standard , and rejected any parts of the Bible not found there. He partially rearranged the sequence of the books of the Old testament, to bring it in line, more or less, with the order of the Hebrew Bible.

Here then, follows the great irony of Jerome’s Latin Bible. The supreme value of Jerome’s scholarship as editor lay in his skill in assessing textual authenticity and in eliminating books and passages which he deemed inauthentic. Jerome produced a Bible which was a model of scholarly caution and care. His judgments still carry weight. However, throughout all periods, members of the Bible-reading public have always been reluctant to sacrifice any familiar passage of scripture in bouts of textual spring-cleaning, however justified. Any sacred text is more likely to accumulate additions than to lose parts which might be authentic. To incorporate passages of unproven authenticity always seems less fearsome than to risk eliminating what might be divine text.

Jerome’s Bible, pruned against the Hebrew original, proved too purified for public acceptance. At some early stage, as it came to be copied and recopied and as it entered the life of the Latin-speaking Church, all the rejected books and passages found their way back in again. The position becomes even worse. Jerome’s saintly bones would revolve in their reliquaries if they could have seen what happened next. Not only were the apocryphal texts reinstated into their old places, but the form in which they re-entered the Bible was none other that that of the archaic Old Latin, for Jerome had allowed them no other. Texts like Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, I-II Maccabees and others slipped back into Jerome’s edition, in exactly the wording of a translation so corrupt that it had inspired Pope Damasus to appoint Jerome in the first place. Good portions of the Old Latin survive for no other reason than that Jerome utterly excluded them.

From “The Book: A History of the Bible” by Christopher De Hamel, Phaidon Press Limited, 2001

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.

What about St. Augustine’s view?

Until the 4th century most Christians used the LXX as the basis for the Hebrew Scriptures. St. Augustine, arguing from tradition, wanted all the deuterocanonical books included in new vulgate translation.

St. Augustine also apparently used an Old Latin version of the Old Testament. He actually prefered this even after he became acquainted with St. Jerome’s ‘new translation’ from the Hebrew (aka: The Vulgate).

St. Augustine also apparently disapproved of the new translation because he believed that the Greek LXX had been inspired– and that it was presumptuous for a single scholar to undertake such a revision.

 

[DCD]

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.

If the Greek was good enough for Jesus it is good enough for me.

Peace,
David

 

[Deacon2006]

The question is who gets to decide which books are inspired and who doesn’t? The first authority in this matter are the authors of the New testament, Matthew, Mark, John, Paul,… . With Hundreds of quotes from the LXX in the new testament and some directly attributed to Jesus it really is incredible that there is even a debate. The LXX was a common text know readily to the authors and was quoted frequently in the New Testament scripture beacuse they believed them too be inspried scripture.

The end

God Bless

 

[NotWorthy]

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.

** Dr. Christopher de Hamel is being intellectually dishonest in his thesis.
**

1. Yes, Jerome questioned the Apochryphal / Deuterocanonical books because they weren’t written in Hebrew. But Jerome has been proven wrong. The Dead Sea Scrolls have revealed Hebrew texts on 6 of the 7 Deuterocanonical books. It would seem Mr. de Hamel would know this since this information is widely known. It’s interesting that he failed to mention that tidbit.
2. Jerome did question the “canonicity” of these books, but he bowed to the Papal Authority and included them in ALL of his subsequent Latin Vulgate texts. They didn’t “creep” back in after his death, as the author suggests.

 

[benaiah]

The question is who gets to decide which books are inspired and who doesn’t? The first authority in this matter are the authors of the New testament, Matthew, Mark, John, Paul,… . With Hundreds of quotes from the LXX in the new testament and some directly attributed to Jesus it really is incredible that there is even a debate. The LXX was a common text know readily to the authors and was quoted frequently in the New Testament scripture beacuse they believed them too be inspried scripture.

The end

God Bless

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

 

[Deacon2006]

The question what do you mean by settled?

The oldest LXX was found as part of the dead scrolls. It was contemporary to New testament authorship.

God Bless

 

[benaiah]

The question what do you mean by settled?

The oldest LXX was found as part of the dead scrolls. It was contemporary to New testament authorship.

God Bless

Hello Deacon2006,
Paul wrote in Rom.3:2 that the jews had the"oracles of God" committed unto them. Wasn’t that the Old Testament “Holy Scriptures”? Isn’t this our Old Testment that we have today? The other part of my question is what is the date of that “oldest” LXX mss. ( if it was found in the dead sea scrolls) and what was the book that was quoted by New Testament authors. Was this “oldest” LXX a whole manuscript of an old Testament book, or a piece of a mss, or a couple of words, and was that ever quoted by a new Testament author. Was the age of this LXX mss 100B.C. or older? I’m just trying to get more specific details about this "oldest"LXX manuscript. Thanks for your help,
God Bless,
Benaiah

 

[Atreyu]

If the Greek was good enough for Jesus it is good enough for me.

Peace,
David

This post reminds of the KJV-onlyists version: “if English was good enough for Jesus, it’s good enough for me!!!”

 

[Will_Pick]

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.

He did what ? Please remember REV 22:18-19 -LOL

 

[RCCDefender]

This post reminds of the KJV-onlyists version: “if English was good enough for Jesus, it’s good enough for me!!!”

That reminds me of A Knights Tale where Roland say, “Yeah, well the pope may be French, but Jesus was English! You’re on!”