Why did the RCC change the Bible?

[Steadfast]

OK, now I’m really confused. Have I been chasing a rabbit down the wrong hole?

What is it that you are claiming?

Well, since I’ve only stated and restated it about six times in this thread, I’m sure you can understand how tired I am of doing so.

But one more time, this is from a recent post:

• 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).

1. I have never really questioned this.
2. 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.
3. I did not automatically and gleefully assume that he (de Hamel) was correct (although I will admit that the surprise was a pleasant one).
4. I submitted his opinion here in order to give you all an opportunity to refute it.
5. You haven’t.
6. Maybe there’s something to it.*

All I am really pointing out is that, contrary to what I always hear, there is at least one fairly important scholar who differs and that if correct this is richly ironic given the penchant around here for claiming that Luther “removed books from the Bible” (something he manifestly did not do).

Elsewhere I have pointed out that I recognize that the Church, prior to the Reformation in the vast vast majority of cases used the canon as the Vulgate today has it but that scholars were permitted to differ prior to Trent’s final codification. And that the 4th and 5th cnetury councils usually adduced to claim an ancient pedigree were not universal but local and never considered ecumenically binding but only precedentory.

 

[NotWorthy]

No, that’s not what I am claiming.

Hmmmm…

From your original post

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.

Then from post #51

My further contention is that there is no record whatsoever of Jerome encountering any censure for this but that his bible was accepted from his hand with gratitude by the Church as the authoritative Latin version.

 

[Thal59]

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…<<<

Here’s the deception. Jerome was tasked to translate the canon of books into Latin, not to edit the books. Jerome has no authority whatsoever to “add to or subtract from” the original texts. Jerome was never charged with editing or determining which works belong in the bible.

The author you have quoted is proceeding along the lines that if Jerome’s supreme skill was editing, then Jerome’s idea of what the canon of the bible should be validates the KJV rather than the Catholic bible. But others have responded how the canon came to be and how it was the Popes who had the final decision.

The impressive degrees of the author you have provided don’t always mean anything if the person in question is biased. I remember picking up a book at the local library about the crusades. It’s author was considered one of the premier authorities on the subject who works at Oxford. I opened the book to a random page. The first thing I read was the author’s premise that the Pope initiated the first crusade because “…it suited the needs of his papacy.” Here is a false statement from a man with impressive degrees. But that sentence educated me on his biases, so I put the book back on the shelf.

Thal59

 

[Steadfast]

But all they’ve done is make the claim.

No one has been able to substantiate it.

I think this is significant.

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…<<<

 

[Thal59]

But all they’ve done is make the claim.

No one has been able to substantiate it.

I think this is significant.

I can’t understand what your point is. What are you saying?

Thal59

 

[Steadfast]

I can’t understand what your point is. What are you saying?

Thal59

My point is the same one I’ve had all along…there’s a difference between just saying something is so and substantiating it.

An example of acceptable substantiation woulod be the adduction of an authority in the field of anceint manuscripts and or canonical history to refute Dr. de Hamel.

 

[NotWorthy]

My point is the same one I’ve had all along…there’s a difference between just saying something is so and substantiating it.

An example of acceptable substantiation woulod be the adduction of an authority in the field of anceint manuscripts and or canonical history to refute Dr. de Hamel.

And our point is the same thing. Dr. de Hamel has produced a theory that goes against the grain of all common teaching. The good doctor should produce evidence of his theories, instead of relying on his pedigree.

So far his only proof is:
a) St. Jerome didn’t think the Deutero’s were Canonical.
b) The Deutero’s are now in the Bible

therefore:

c) Catholics added the books gradually over time despite the Canon “established” by St. Jerome.

 

[Thal59]

My point is the same one I’ve had all along…there’s a difference between just saying something is so and substantiating it.

An example of acceptable substantiation woulod be the adduction of an authority in the field of anceint manuscripts and or canonical history to refute Dr. de Hamel.

Your problem, Steadfast, is that you are reducing the equation to two parts that are not essential to the answer. First, St. Jerome never had the authority to determine the canon. If you read even a short bio of his life you will see that he wavered often in his respect for various manuscripts over time, and his work is equally capricious; sometimes magnificent, sometimes only fair.

Secondly, you are presenting a case based on the credentials of Dr. DeHamel who also has no authority in the matter. You pose the proposition…

An example of acceptable substantiation would be the adduction of an authority in the field of anceint manuscripts and or canonical history to refute Dr. de Hamel.<<<

Dr. DeHamel has indeed been refuted by a multitude of greater authorities in the fields you provide. This “multitude” of greater authorities consists of the untold thousands of scholars, theologians, and saints of the Catholic church who accepted and promoted the Catholic canon as it has always been from the beginning. These are people who lived when the canon was first set, re-affirmed many times, and who defended the church’s declaration of authenticity regarding what you consider deuterocanonical works.

If you want to go from Dr.DeHamel to St.Jerome and skip everyone else in between, that is your prerogative. But you’ll never prove your point if you disregard those who had the authority to determine the canon in favor of Jerome’s personal opinion, or if you likewise disregard almost 2,000 years of intellectuals who were present during the events in question in favor of the opinions of Dr. DeHamel.

What it boils down to is this: Do I accept the opinion of Dr. DeHamel and you, or do I accept the combined efforts of scholars, theologians, intellectuals, and saints of 2,000 years of church history?

Sorry, Steadfast. I am sticking to the people who were there.

Thal59

 

[Nate]

Steadfast, if you want a refutation from Raymond Brown you can look in the Jerome Biblical Commentary at 69:104 on the vulgate in which he notes that these books were included in an appendix as late as 405.

Jerome apparently did not think they were canonical (at least from the Jews point of view) but did say in other writings that he would accept the ruling of the Church. on such matters, and I know of nothing that contradicts that.

The canons approved at the councils of Rome, Hippo and Carthage all included the deuteros in them and were also repeated and confirmed at the council of Florence before Trent.

Luther did retain these writings in his bible as apocrypha but since the Church had long recognized them as canonical it seemed like a direct challenge to the Church’s authority that triggered a formal definition at Trent.

You must admit that the title of your OP “Why did the RCC change the Bible?” implies something that is not really true, since the Church did not really change anything but merely dogmatically reaffirmed what it had held for more than a millenium.

 

[Steadfast]

Nate,
The thread title is purposely provocative, but I’ve noticed that unless I do that I generally get ignored.

I will check the Jerome Commentary, thanks for the reference.

As for the rest:

http://photos1.blogger.com/img/169/2398/320/SW Pictureguy banging head on wall.jpg

 

[NPS]

Steady now, Steadfast.
I think you’ve got a bit mixed-up on what Jerome’s actions and responsiblities were and on what his work produced.
You’re not helped by Dr. De Hamel’s sloppy writing.

I’ll attempt to keep it simple:
Jerome was charged by Pope Damasus to make a new translation of the New Testament into Latin from Greek. There were tons of Latin NTs around, but many were sloppily done.
Jerome completed only the Gospels. He later moved to Bethlehem and (even later) began to translate the books written in Hebrew into Latin. He was at this point acting on his own—he was not under papal orders to produce a bible.

Jerome was not in charge of deciding which books were canonical and which were not. Jerome was not in charge of making a new bible. What we know as “The Vulgate” or “Jerome’s Vulgate” is, as most bibles were (and are), a product of more than one hand. Jerome saw his task as translating books written in Hebrew into Latin. He did this very well in most cases.
Jerome did not produce a bible. Jerome produced a series of translations of manuscripts (biblical “books”) which achieved varying degrees of acceptance in the christian world. It would take hundreds of years for his work to be completely accepted all over Christendom. What we think of as “Jerome’s Vulgate” was not a single book as a whole until much, much later. It’s called “Jerome’s” because he was the person who did most of the work. The rest of it was done by other people and some of Jerome’s work was tainted by inferior copying and translation (remember this was all done by hand).This is what De Hamel is referring to.

( De Hamel, however, is either mistaken or intentionally misleading on several points in your quote of him and I will get to some points in my next post. )

Bottom line: Jerome had no authority to decide what goes into the canon and what stays out. His job was largely as a translator. His job was most certainly NOT deciding the canon. He did not produce what we think of today as a “bible”.

 

[NPS]

Breaking down De Hamel’s words:

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.

A red flag is immediately raised with me because of the way he puts this. He states the above as if Jerome discovered this astonishing fact when every learned Christian man in the world knew that certain Jewish books were not written in Hebrew. He puts it as “Hebrew scriptures did not include…” as if to say the books were not written by Jews for Jews and widely used by Jews for hundreds of years. He follows up with “…all of which were in the common Greek translation.” as if they had been inserted into Judaism by Christians. At the time those books were written (by Jews) and used extensively (by Jews), Greek was by far more widely used by Jews than was Hebrew.

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.

Strange misdirection here. Jerome worked on Tobit and Judith fifteen years after he began work on the Hebrew Old Testament and De Hamel surely must know that a copy of Tobit in Hebrew was found in Qumran amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls.
And Judith was written in Hebrew before it was written in Greek.
Same with Baruch. De Hamel is avoiding the real subject here:
The books which were to be later labelled as “apocrypha” were Jewish books written BY Jews FOR Jews and widely used.
I’d be interested to know if he delves into the subject elsewhere in his book.
I can’t argue with Jerome editing and changing sequence to match the Hebrew whatsoever—that was his intention—to match the (current) Hebrew editions.

 

[NPS]

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’s job was as translator and editor, but De Hamel takes it one step too far by saying that “inauthentic books” were eliminated. Thats either a very sloppy or a completely dishonest wording. Jerome’s job was to match the Hebrew to the Latin. Just because something wasn’t written in Hebrew doesn’t make it un-Jewish, let alone “inauthentic”. This is Judaism 101.

Jerome produced a Bible which was a model of scholarly caution and care. His judgments still carry weight.

All true.

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.

True. There were tons of Latin versions all over the world and many of these were wrong in many places. Jerome’s version shook things up a bit.

Jerome’s Bible, pruned against the Hebrew original, proved too purified for public acceptance.*

“The Hebrew original”. Still no mention that the Greek comes from a purer, earlier Hebrew version. Sure, Jerome didn’t know this, but every biblical scholar in the world today knows this. Why no mention?

 

[NPS]

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.

I agree about the passages. Hand copying and local preferences meant changes to Jerome’s work, but----He’s just flat wrong here when he talks about “rejected books” sneakily “finding their way back in”. There simply wasn’t a “bible” as we know it. There were manuscripts of specific “books” occasionally put together into groups. Jerome DID NOT produce a BIBLE. There simply WAS NOT a BIBLE that Jerome or the Catholic Church produced that didn’t have all the books. Pure dirty pool here by De Hamel. Either that or he’s just a poor writer.

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.

False, false, FALSE! Jerome fully accepted Church authority and in no way would complain about the inclusion of the deuterocanonicals. He would most certainly complain bitterly about insertion of inferior Latin translations in place of his work, but to say he would spin in his grave because bibles have the Deuteros in them is just hogwash. Rubbish!

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.

Completely, utterly WRONG!!! Pope Damasus appointed Jerome the task of making new translations of the New Testament from the Greek Septuagint. Jerome was NEVER tasked by the Pope to re-do the OT because of poor Latin and NEVER told that those books didn’t belong there. They didn’t “slip back in” anywhere. WRONG!!! WRONG!!! WRONG!!!

Good portions of the Old Latin survive for no other reason than that Jerome utterly excluded them.

No. Jerome didn’t do that work, so someone else had to or they used earlier work. Simple.
Remember, Jerome did not produce a bible. Jerome’s translation and editing work became the basis of a later “bible”.

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

De Hamel is a professor of manuscripts. He is not a professor of Biblical Studies. He is not a professor of Christianity. He is not a professor of Judaism. He is not a professor of Biblical History.

 

[Steadfast]

NPS,

You started very well, but then you fell into the same old behaviors common to ePologists: “Because I said so”, “It just couldn’t have happened that way”, “It’s not ‘fitting’”.

Do you have a doctorate in any of the fields where de Hamel lacks them? Are you a published and internationally renowned expert in any of these fields such that your opinion (since it is stated without any secondary support) should be taken at face value?

 

[NPS]

NPS,

You started very well, but then you fell into the same old behaviors common to ePologists: “Because I said so”, “It just couldn’t have happened that way”, “It’s not ‘fitting’”.

Do you have a doctorate in any of the fields where de Hamel lacks them? Are you a published and internationally renowned expert in any of these fields such that your opinion (since it is stated without any secondary support) should be taken at face value?

Thank you for that response, Steadfast. I now know exactly how seriously to take you on this subject.

 

[Steadfast]

Thank you for that response, Steadfast. I now know exactly how seriously to take you on this subject.

Well, that’s certainly one way to avoid the issue.

I appreciate your hard work. I am sure it took a long time to type all that. It’s well written and it is, clearly, your own work.

I honestly appreciate all that.

But it doesn’t answer anything. It just resorts to newly minted dismissals and fresh expressions (without substantiation) of exactly what the OP disputes.

All you’ve done is say over again that Jerome did include them, regardless of what Dr. de Hamel says, without actually offering any testimony to substantiate the claim.

Oh, and along the way you’ve impugned his scholarship.

Now, if you are a Doctor of Sacred Scripture, or of Ancient Manuscripts or a scholar of similar stature to that of Dr. de Hamel I would have to consider your testimony as at least equally valid.

So, are you? Because if you aren’t, then, despite your indignation with me for calling your technique into question, I have to say that the “substance” of your comments here rather misses the mark. It’s just you saying it and I don’t know who you are other than another in the growing army of ill-equipped and critically inept wannabe Catholic ePologists.

 

[NPS]

Well, that’s certainly one way to avoid the issue.

I appreciate your hard work. I am sure it took a long time to type all that. It’s well written and it is, clearly, your own work.

I honestly appreciate all that.

But it doesn’t answer anything. It just resorts to newly minted dismissals and fresh expressions (without substantiation) of exactly what the OP disputes.

All you’ve done is say over again that Jerome did include them, regardless of what Dr. de Hamel says, without actually offering any testimony to substantiate the claim.

Oh, and along the way you’ve impugned his scholarship.

Now, if you are a Doctor of Sacred Scripture, or of Ancient Manuscripts or a scholar of similar stature to that of Dr. de Hamel I would have to consider your testimony as at least equally valid.

So, are you? Because if you aren’t, then, despite your indignation with me for calling your technique into question, I have to say that the “substance” of your comments here rather misses the mark. It’s just you saying it and I don’t know who you are other than another in the growing army of ill-equipped and critically inept wannabe Catholic ePologists.

Sorry, brother, I’m not looking for props from you, I’m just knocking you for your lack of effort. If you’ve read anything on the subject before Dr De Hamel’s book, you’d know he is off-base on his thumbnail about Jerome. Either that or you’ve misquoted him from his book. I have no qualms whatsoever about bagging on his work if that quote is truly his, and even though I don’t possess a doctorate in biblical studies, I would gladly—GLADLY—debate the man on this subject tonight. After what I’ve read here, I know he hasn’t spent a lot of time on that particular subject.

De Hamel is either biased or simply rushed through that part of his research and/or his writing. It happens. Let me 'splain you:
He is not a biblical scholar. He is not a scholar of Christianity. He is not a scholar of Judaism. He is not a scholar of Christian history. He is a professor of manuscripts who decided to write a book on the history of the bible. Fine. Many people do. What happens is----no matter how many degrees in other fields the author has—he has to do research. Which in this case means he has to read other people’s books on the subject.(You should find these listed in his book). He makes notes and outlines. He writes sentences and chapters. He edits. His editor edits. He rewrites. Finally the book is published. His thumbnail on Jerome has generalizations and mistakes that do not agree with other historians. Now, he either a) made a few mistakes or b) is biased or c) he is correct. If he is correct, then he is going against the accepted historical viewpoints. If he is going against the accepted historical viewpoints, then he would likely explain why his view doesn’t jibe with other’s views. He must have some new research which he has found—except he doesn’t mention it anywhere. What are the chances of that?

The book is a general history of the bible. The book is not a history of Jerome or a history of The Vulgate. Read about the subject, Steady. You’ll find that the Good Doctor has made a mistake or two in his thumbnail. It happens.

 

[Steadfast]

His thumbnail on Jerome has generalizations and mistakes that do not agree with other historians.

An example of these “other historians” would be both timely and well received.

 

[Thal59]

Dr. Christopher De Hamel.

He has a D.Phil from Oxford (1979) and an honorary Litt.D from St John’s University, Minnesota (1994). Since 1975, he has been responsible for all sales of **illuminated manuscripts **at Sotheby’s. In 1999-2000, he was a Visiting Fellow of All Souls College, Oxford.

O.K. These are respectable credentials, but it seems to me that what I am discovering about the man is that his speciality regards illuminated manuscripts.

An illuminated Manuscript is a manuscript whose text is supplemented by the addition of decoration or illustration, such as decorated initials, borders, and miniatures. In the strictest definition of the term, an illuminated manuscript only refers to manuscripts decorated with gold or silver. However, in both common usage and modern scholarship, the term is now used to refer to any decorated manuscript.

So far, what I am understanding about this man is that his field of expertise is **authenticating illuminated manuscripts for sale by Sotheby’s. **I do not mean to infer that the man is not qualified to speak about the work or reasons of St. Jerome, I am merely pointing out that, so far, it doesn’t seem to be his speciality.

His speciality seems to encompass authenticating manuscripts that are decorated. This would require an ability to determine a manuscript’s age, composition of materials, place of origin, and whether the artwork is original or added later as an embellishment. But one would not need to know the life story of a script’s author, or have a vast understanding of the subject matter that is written on the parchment to be able to verify its authenticity. Such knowledge would be helpful, but would not be mandatory for the task. You seemed to ask for someone equally impressive who could refute Dr. De Hamel’s opinions. Let me take a shot at it:

Most Reverend Charles P. Greco, D.D. - Most Rev. Joseph T. McGucken S.T.D. - Most Rev. Romeo Blanchette, D.D. - Most Rev. Vincent S. Waters, D.D. - Most Rev. Christopher J. Weldon, D.D.
Rev. Louis F. Hartman, C.SS.R., S.S.L., Ling, Or. L., Chairman Old Testament Editors-in-Chief; Staff editor for scripture, Ne Catholic Encyclopedia; Professor of semitic languages, Catholic University of America.
Rev. Msgr. Myles M. Bourke, S.T.D., S.S.L., Chairman New Testament Editors-in-Chief; Professor of Scripture, Fordham University Graduate School. (Visiting Professor, Pontifical Biblical Institute, Rome.)
Rev. Msgr. Patrick W. Skehan, S.T.D., LL.D., Vice-Chairman, Old Testament Editors-in-Chief; Chairman Department of Semitic and Egyptian Languages, Catholic University of America; Consultor, Pontifical Biblical Commission.
Rev. Stephen J. Hartdegen, O.F.M., S.S.L., General Secretary, Old and New Testaments Editors-in-Chief; Longtime Professor of Scriptures, Holy Name College, Washington, D.C.
Rev. Gerarg S. Sloyan, S.T.L., Ph.D., English editor for the New Testament, Head of the Department of Religion, Temple University.

Prof. Frank M. Cross, Jr. Ph.D., Bancroft Professor of Near Eastern Languages, Harvard University; Member International Dead Sea Scrolls Team.
Rev. Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J., M.A., S.T.L., S.S.L., Ph.D., Professor Near Eastern Languages and Literature - University of Chicago.
Rev. Richard T. Murphy, O.P., S.T.D., S.S.D., Professor of Religious Knowledge at King’s College.
Rev. Bruce Vawter, C.M., S.T.L., S.S.D., Professor of Scripture, De Paul University.

The above rendered names, along with 43 other individuals with equally impressive degrees and backgrounds, constitute the team that prepared my 1974-75 edition of “The New American Bible” that I now have in front of me.

Correct me if I am wrong, but the gist of your thread… Did the RCC change the bible, questions whether the modern RCC bible is different from what Jerome thought it should be. We have already pointed out the fact that Jerome had no authority in determining the canon. I have also stated that there are almost 2,000 years of Catholic scholars, theologians, and intellectuals who have always accepted the bible from its first inception until today.

Above are the names of some of those scholars and churchman who would not agree with Dr. De Hamel. If you want, I can scan and give you the names of the 54 different scholars who contributed to the production of my 1950 bible.

The so-called “Deuterocanonicals” were in the first bible, and they are still in the Catholic bible today. Scholars who have a greater knowledge of scriptures, history, languages, St. Jerome - and more - than you or Dr. De Hamel have accept the bible as it is and always was. Steadfast, you should be getting the feeling by now that you are greatly outnumbered.

Thal59