Why did the RCC change the Bible?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Steadfast
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
NotWorthy said:
Steadfast, it would simply help if your expert provided even a shred of evidence.

It’s like the entire population thinking the world is flat. Even an expert had to prove that it was round before they could start to believe it. (I figured the analogy would ring true with you after this thread ;)).
Click to expand...
Why does he, a known authority, have to give evidence before you provide a refuting authority?

All I am asking for is an authority of equal stature who says that Jerome translated the Deuteros and included them in what he published as the Vulgate.

I am not asking for that authority to prove the contention. I will accept it on his own authority. Because, unlike you, I recognize that the authority of a known expert is self-evident and to suggest otherwise is to impute dishonest intent.

Mark Shea and Joe Gallegos are not “authorities of equal stature”.

Someone like a Fr. Joseph FitzMeyer or Raymond Brown would certainly be such an authority of equal stature.
 
Steadfast,

If Fr. Fitzmeyer or Raymond Brown told you that they had a document that proves Dr. de Hamel made up his facts, what would you think?
 
The original post begins with the key to the entire issue “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.”

The highly decorated Dr. de Hamel leaves out a very significant point that changes the entire discussion … The Jews did not have, and still do not have, a central authority that would or could determine with authority what books are scripture. The Sadducees used one canon, the Pharasees used another, the Essenes used another, Hellenized Jews another, and the Ethiopian Jews use a different one to this day. They had individual scrolls and not everyone had the same set.

To say "Jerome found that the Hebrew scriptures did not include the books of Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, I-II Maccabees and Baruch, " does not say anything because there was no set canon, and there could not be because there was no authority to set it.

Most Jews today descend from the Pharasees theologically. The Essenes are gone as are the Saducees. So the Jews are using the canon favored by the Pharasees. The writers of the New Testament used the Septuagint for many if not most of their references. The Septuagint canon was put together by Hellenized Jews (whose authority to set a canon was the same as any other group of Jews at that time). Since the church was growing among Hellenized Jews and was written by Hellenized Jews to a great extent, the Septuagint was the base for the OT quotations.

The Church determined the Christian canon until Luther chose a canon that suited his theology … a canon used by those who reject Christ. Does that make any sense?

(edited to add paragraphs but not to correct spelling for that would be beyond my skill set)
 
NotWorthy said:
Steadfast,

If Fr. Fitzmeyer or Raymond Brown told you that they had a document that proves Dr. de Hamel made up his facts, what would you think?
Click to expand...
I’d think, wow, let’s get them together!

But Fr. Brown has gone to his reward.😦
 
Steadfast said:
What is this supposed to mean? Being German somehow disqualifies him from having an opinion or being intelligent? Typical Roman arrogance.
Come on, why the exasperated question?
I wrote that part tongue-in-cheek. Didn’t you see the smiley? Why did you take that statement seriously? I only said that Luther is from Germany because Jerome is from Dalmatia, not because I’m a racist who thinks Germans are unintelligent or something. If that is so, then the Pope will be unintelligent too (but then again, he’s a Bavarian).
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Apologetic for the Masses issue # 18:
“Could you be wrong on your interpretation of this passage,” said Alice to the Mad Hatter. “Of course I could be wrong on my interpretation…,” “Because you’re not infallible,” interjected Alice, “…because I’m not infallible, you know,” continued the Mad Hatter. “Then,” said Alice, “you would agree that the Cheshire Cat’s interpretation of this verse could possibly be right?” “Absolutely, not,” said the Mad Hatter. “I can say with absolute certainty that the Cheshire Cat’s interpretation of this passage is wrong!” “But,” interjected Alice, “you could be wrong on that, couldn’t you?” “Of course, I could be wrong on that…,” said the Mad Hatter. “Because you’re not infallible,” interjected Alice again. “…because I’m not infallible, you know,” finished the Mad Hatter. “Then,” said Alice, a bit puzzled, “if you’re not infallible, couldn’t the Cheshire Cat be right?” “Absolutely not,” said the Mad Hatter, “the Cheshire Cat can never be right when he disagrees with me.” biblechristiansociety.com/
Click to expand...
I know that what we are talking about here DOES NOT have to do with infallibility. However I thought that this was just so fitting.

Steadfast: de HAMEL is an authoritative source that said that Jerome….
Mommyof02green: de Hamel can be wrong right?
Steadfast: Is de Hamel right or wrong? I don’t know. I don’t even care.
Mommyof02green: Well if he can be wrong, why should I agree with him?
Steadfast: de HAMEL is an authoritative source that said that Jerome….
Mommyof02green: A source that can be wrong, right?
Steadfast: Is de Hamel right or wrong? I don’t know. I don’t even care.
Mommyof02green: Well if he can be wrong, why should I agree with him?
Steadfast: de HAMEL is an authoritative source that said that Jerome….
Mommyof02green: A source that can be wrong, right?
Steadfast: Is de Hamel right or wrong? I don’t know. I don’t even care.
Mommyof02green: Well if he can be wrong, why should I agree with him?

We can play this “Alice and Mad Hatter Game” all day if you would like!
You want to say that I have put up a “straw-man” but honestly, who has the straw-man argument?

There are many “Authoritative” voices in this world. However, just because they are “authoritative” doesn’t mean they are right. You Steadfast, said that your “Authoritative” source could be wrong. So again if your source could be wrong, why should I listen to it? If your source can be wrong, why don’t you give other “voices” (sources) to back up your lone voice? Oh, wait, I know, you don’t because he’s an “authoritative” voice!!! Ohhhh………

Yet, this wonderful Authoritative voice CAN be wrong. So if he can be wrong, then give him some more supporters that say that he is right. Is it really all that hard to do???

There have been many people that have provided “sources” and “voices” that are the OPPISOTE of what your may be wrong, maybe right Authoritative voice has said. Yet, those are good enough for you!

I’m starting to think they aren’t good enough, because it’s the “Cheshire Cat” that is speaking!
 
Oh, is that what you want?

Yes, Dr. Christopher de Hamel could certainly be wrong.

Now, please produce some authority or evidence beyond the regurgitation of the error he corrects by some ePologetic screed-artist.

I am not interested in defending de Hamel. I don’t have to provide other authorities to support him.

As it stands, in this thread, there is 1 (one) “authority” who has given his opinion.

Think of it this way:

I am jury. I am presented with two claims: one that Jerome included the Deuteros and one that he did not.

Okay, now I’d like to see evidence.

Exhibit One is the testimony of Dr. de Hamel that he did not include them. His title and academic prestige are what they are, and the suggestion that he might be making stuff up is libellous so I won’t go there. I’ll just take his opinion into evidence as an expert witness and leave it at that for now. If there is a corresponding claim to the contrary from an equally reliable witness then his claim would certainly be open to more scrutiny, but more on that in a moment.

In a court of Law the testimony of an expert can be challenged any number of ways, the honesty or the bona fides of the witness can be challenged, for example, or his conclusion can be questioned, but in order for the latter to happen, some evidence must be in place to the contrary.

So far there hasn’t really been any challenge to his testimony beyond “He doesn’t know what he’s talking about.” and, “He needs to provide more evidence.”. In the first case it’s just ad hom and can be dismissed as such, the latter is libel since the implication is that he’s lying, or that he hasn’t the competence to have the opinion he, in fact has.

The burden of producing evidence is now on you.
 
Since you’ve acknowledged that the good Dr. could be wrong, is it not up to you, steadfast, to prove him correct? Unless he is correct, why should we indeed listen to him?
 
Tantum_ergo said:
Since you’ve acknowledged that the good Dr. could be wrong, is it not up to you, steadfast, to prove him correct? Unless he is correct, why should we indeed listen to him?
Click to expand...
All I am doing is producing a witness. I am not the one who claims that Jerome included the books. In fact, for right now, I have concluded nothing.

But if some evidence isn’t forthcoming soon I may just have to conclude that he is right by default since, apparently, there is absolutely no evidence or testimony of similar weight to the contrary.

As a refresher, here’s the trajectory:
  1. I often hear Catholics say that even though Jerome considered the Deuteros apocryphal, he was persuaded to include them by the Pope (or the church, or whomever).
  2. I have never really questioned this.
  3. One day while reading Dr. de Hamel’s book, I came accross the part I reproduced for this thread which differs from what I had always heard.
  4. I did not automatically and gleefully assume that he was correct (although I will admit that the surprise was a pleasant one).
  5. I submitted his opinion here in order to give you all an opportunity to refute it.
  6. You haven’t.
  7. Maybe there’s something to it.
 
Didn’t somebody say that it was impossible to prove a negative?
The good doctor apparently believes that the books ‘slipped back in’ after Jerome put together the Vulgate ‘without them’. Well, where is that Vulgate? Where are the contemporary copies of a Vulgate without the books? Shouldn’t there be at least ONE example extant, or documented, or heard about? I’ve seen no example of a Vulgate which does NOT contain the books. Steadfast, you appear to be saying that because there is no proof one way or another as to WHEN the books ‘slipped back’ that the good doctor is CORRECT in his assertion.

If the books were there from the beginning (and the good doctor has not proved that they were not; conversely, many posters have pointed out that according to several councils etc. they WERE in there from the beginning); then they could NOT have been ‘slipped back in’, could they? How can you ‘slip in’ something ALREADY THERE?

IMO the fact that there appears to be no particular evidence (and believe me, if something HAD been ‘slipped in’ there would have been plenty of evidence–just look at all the documentation we have about everything from gnostics to heresies during the years 100-700, you think that the appearance of ‘new books’ would NOT have been noted, especially by the Orthodox, or the Celts, given the periodic ‘questionings’ of Roman authority in the period?) is an indicator that indeed those books were right there just where they should be. . .
 
The claim that Jerome translated and included the deuteros is hardly a negative. It’s a commonly taught belief. There ought to be some evidence for it.

The claim that there “should be some extant manuscript without them” is just, frankly, ludicrous. It’s not as though Jerome had a secret library where he kept his originals. All of these were copied with additions and lost.

Dr. de Hamel’s argument comes from the fact that there are Old Latin texts extant from the period and that these are substantially identical to the intercollated parts and depart significantly from Jerome’s style and usage. Combined with his (Jerome’s) expressed opinion about the canonicity of the Deuteros, and the glaring lack of evidence that the Pope ever did in fact prevail upon him to include them, he concludes with satisfactory confidence that Jerome never translated them and never included them but that they were put in by later redactors.

As an expert in ancient manuscripts his opinion is valid until proven wrong.
 
Steadfast said:
All I am doing is producing a witness. I am not the one who claims that Jerome included the books. In fact, for right now, I have concluded nothing.

But if some evidence isn’t forthcoming soon I may just have to conclude that he is right by default since, apparently, there is absolutely no evidence or testimony of similar weight to the contrary.
Click to expand...
That would be a conclusion based on false reasoning. Just because there are no experts here who can adress this question doesn’t mean there are no experts anywhere who can address it.

And at the end of the day I still don’t see what point you think you are making. There is no question that the deuteros have been included in every council that pronounced on the canon. There is also no question that Jerome supressed his own opinions about them and accepted the judgement of the Magisterium. At the very most, you will end up demonstrating that Jerome didn’t translate them. So?
 
Steadfast, here’s one of the biggest rubs of the article.

You don’t simply state that Jerome didn’t include them and they made it back in. Your article states that the Deutero’s crept back in there gradually over time. But you haven’t provided any proof, other than saying, “Well, he’s an expert, and you guys aren’t”.

There HAS to be some substantitive proof to say that these books slowly over time, made it back in to the Vulgate’s canon. How can you doctor say that IF HE HAS NO PROOF!!! The claim that:

a) Jerome didn’t want them in the Vulgate’s Canon, and
b) They are in the Vulgate’s Canon today,

is NOT proof that they were not there and then crept back in. I’m no expert and even I know that. Your good doctor needs something a little more solid than that in order for his theory to hold water.
 
Steadfast: “All I am doing is producing a witness.” (see post #149)
Okay so he is your “witness” that means you are the “attorney”. Attorneys produce more then one “witness”. They produce others to back up what their “witness” has to say. 🙂

However, you will not produce more witness because you also are the “jury”. And a “jury” just sits and listens to all the witnesses. Steadfast: “I am jury.” (see post #147)

But I also see in this “courtroom” you are also the “judge”. Judges, rule was is in and what is out. What can be heard and what the “jury” must ignore. Steadfast: It’s my thread, I started it, and all requests for “satisfaction” take a back seat to answering the contention of the OP. (see post # 91); Mark Shea and Joe Gallegos are not “authorities of equal stature”. (see post # 141)

So I get it! It’s your courtroom, you are Judge, Jury, and Defendant. You are “innocent” and “correct” until the plaintiff can prove other wise. However, the plaintiff has to play by the rules set by the Judge, which is you. So you are the defendant and you are making the rules. The plaintiff has to convince the jury (which is you) that you could be wrong.

This is what is called a “stacked” courtroom. How is anyone going to prove anything in these conditions? I declare a “mistrial”!!!

Hopefully there are other “jury” members out there that can see the point!
 
It occurs to me that maybe this whole question revolves around a blurring of the distinction between the canon of scripture, and translations of scripture. The canon specifies what books are in the bible, not what translations are in the bible. If the canon says that 1 Maccabees is in the bible, it’s in the bible whether or not Jerome happened to produce a translation from the Greek into the Latin. So again, at most it seems that the claim can only be that Jerome didn’t translate the entire bible. If not, other translations were used. What’s the big deal?
 
VociMike said:
It occurs to me that maybe this whole question revolves around a blurring of the distinction between the canon of scripture, and translations of scripture. The canon specifies what books are in the bible, not what translations are in the bible. If the canon says that 1 Maccabees is in the bible, it’s in the bible whether or not Jerome happened to produce a translation from the Greek into the Latin. So again, at most it seems that the claim can only be that Jerome didn’t translate the entire bible. If not, other translations were used. What’s the big deal?
Click to expand...
What Steadfast is claiming, if I’m correct, is that the Church used the Latin Vulgate as it’s official Bible. And since it’s canon did not included the Deutero’s, then the Catholic Church’s official Canon at this time did not include the Deutero’s.

The councils of Hippo and Carthage were ONLY local councils and were not binding on the whole church, is his claim, hence we added the Deutero’s gradually over time by sneaking them back into subsequent copies of the Vulgate.
 
NotWorthy said:
What Steadfast is claiming, if I’m correct, is that the Church used the Latin Vulgate as it’s official Bible. And since it’s canon did not included the Deutero’s, then the Catholic Church’s official Canon at this time did not include the Deutero’s.

The councils of Hippo and Carthage were ONLY local councils and were not binding on the whole church, is his claim, hence we added the Deutero’s gradually over time by sneaking them back into subsequent copies of the Vulgate.
Click to expand...
OK, but what does “official bible” even mean? There are authoritative declarations on the canon, and there are approved translations of those books in the canon, but where does the concept of “official bible” fit within this framework? For example, does that mean that the Greek sources of the Latin New Testament were somehow deprecated? I hardly think so, since it is they that are inspired, not their translations! Jerome’s bible, which is to say Jerome’s collection of translations of scripture, is in no way an authoritative declaration of a canon.

If I were a Protestant this would cause me serious difficulties, because translations are not originals (which don’t exist anymore, anyway). But as a Catholic I know the Church teaches the fullness of the faith regardless of what translations she uses, and regardless of the nonexistence of the original inspired texts.
 
NotWorthy said:
What Steadfast is claiming, if I’m correct, is that the Church used the Latin Vulgate as it’s official Bible. And since it’s canon did not included the Deutero’s, then the Catholic Church’s official Canon at this time did not include the Deutero’s.

The councils of Hippo and Carthage were ONLY local councils and were not binding on the whole church, is his claim, hence we added the Deutero’s gradually over time by sneaking them back into subsequent copies of the Vulgate.
Click to expand...
No, that’s not what I am claiming.
 
Mommyof02green said:
Steadfast: “All I am doing is producing a witness.” (see post #149)
Okay so he is your “witness” that means you are the “attorney”. Attorneys produce more then one “witness”. They produce others to back up what their “witness” has to say. 🙂

However, you will not produce more witness because you also are the “jury”. And a “jury” just sits and listens to all the witnesses. Steadfast: “I am jury.” (see post #147)

But I also see in this “courtroom” you are also the “judge”. Judges, rule was is in and what is out. What can be heard and what the “jury” must ignore. Steadfast: It’s my thread, I started it, and all requests for “satisfaction” take a back seat to answering the contention of the OP. (see post # 91); Mark Shea and Joe Gallegos are not “authorities of equal stature”. (see post # 141)

So I get it! It’s your courtroom, you are Judge, Jury, and Defendant. You are “innocent” and “correct” until the plaintiff can prove other wise. However, the plaintiff has to play by the rules set by the Judge, which is you. So you are the defendant and you are making the rules. The plaintiff has to convince the jury (which is you) that you could be wrong.

This is what is called a “stacked” courtroom. How is anyone going to prove anything in these conditions? I declare a “mistrial”!!!

Hopefully there are other “jury” members out there that can see the point!
Click to expand...
Actually, you’re the judge, we’re all the judge as we see the evidence. So far we’ve only seen one piece and a lot of circumstance and hearsay.

It’s a fluid analogy anyway, it doesn’t matter whether it sticks to type, and it’s a common sign of incompetence or inadequacy or maybe just lack of preparation to focus on minutiae rather than dealing with substance.

A mistrial would be convenient for you, as indeed it always is for the one who doesn’t really have any evidence to acquit his defendant.

Judge = common sense

Jury = me and you

defendant = the claim that Jerome included the Deuteros

prosecutor = the claim that he did not

lead witness for the prosecution = Dr. de Hamel

lead witness for the defense = having a sandwich at a nearby deli.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top