Why did the RCC change the Bible?

[Steadfast]

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

Wow, that’s a lot of names.

Where do they refute de Hamel?

 

[NPS]

Ah, I almost want to say never mind. I checked out De Hamel’s book and it’s basically a picture book with blurbs about the development of the bible. From what I can see, it’s absolutely beautiful, and must be fun to look at, but it’s not a real in-depth thing. I have to ask, Steadfast—Do you actually own this book or did you just pull a quote from someplace on the web?

De Hamel is basically a manuscript librarian–one of the top guys in the world—but not a biblical historian. I get where’s he coming from and understand his approach, but he makes some broad statements because of what the book is about. Looking at what the book really is, it’s hard to knock him too much.

Anyway, what it really boils down to is there was a brilliant translator who changed his opinions over the years. A translator doesn’t set canons. One man doesn’t set canons. At least not in the True Church.

 

[NPS]

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

“But it is as a Bible translator that Jerome is most justly famous, and in particular as the translator of ‘the Vulgate’. We now use ‘Vulgate’ to mean ‘Jerome’s Bible’. Yet this use, given universal currency by the Council of Trent, cannot be traced further back than the thirteenth century. In Jerome’s day editio vulgata, (the common edition) when applied to the Latin Bible meant what we now call ‘the Old Latin’ as distinct from ‘the Vulgate’—that is the popular Bible, which Jerome’s work ultimately replaced…in the process of time, Jerome’s new version had made it’s way and supplanted the Old Latin…”
–Cambridge History of the Bible

“Jerome did not set out at the start to produce a new bible. As we have seen, he was set on his course as a translator by Damasus, and Damasus commissioned him, so far as is known for certain, to produce a revised version of the Old Latin Gospels only.”
** --Cambridge History of the Bible**

“So Jerome decided to start afresh and produce his own translation of the ‘Hebrew verity’ (Hebraica veritas)”
–Cambridge History of the Bible

“From the beginning of the eighth century onwards, apart from a few insignificant exceptions, the contents of “The Vulgate” were fixed, namely: (i) Jerome’s version of the Jewish canonical books (apart from the Psalter)–translated direct from the Hebrew: (ii) Jerome’s “Gallican” Psalter—a radical revision of the Old Latin, based on the Hexaplaric Septuagint; (iii) Jerome’s free translations from the ‘Chaldee’–i.e. Tobit and Judith; (iv) certain unrevised Old Latin ‘ecclesiastical’ books–Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, 1 and 2 Maccabees, and Baruch; (v) Jerome’s revised gospels; and (vi) Acts, epistles, and Revelation–revised by a person or persons unknown.”
–Cambridge History of the Bible

*"[The apocrypha] clearly enjoyed a considerable popularity in different circles in Judaism, including the Qumran community. Indeed, it is evident from the fragments found at Qumran that the extent of this literature was considerably greater than previously been realized."/I]
–Cambridge History of the Bible

Cassiodorus monastery around the year 700 was when “we first hear of a ‘pandect’ (i.e. a complete bible) containing Jerome’s versions”.
–Cambridge History of the Bible

*“Books like Judith, Tobit and the Wisdom of Solomon he [Jerome] was ready to use within the Church as freely and as authoritatively as any other part of the Old Testament”./*I]
–Cambridge History of the Bible

"…during this stay in Rome he was entrusted by the pope in 383/4 with the task of 'restoring the New Testament to it’s Greek original"
—The Story of the Bible, Wansbrough

"Now in Bethlehem, he gradually realized that he must turn from the Greek Bible to what he came to call the Hebraica veritas, the Hebrew text of the bible."
—The Story of the Bible, Wansbrough

"By 390…he realized that in order to prevent the Jews continuing to reproach the Church…he must translate directly from the Hebrew…So he began his greatest and most lasting work."
—The Story of the Bible, Wansbrough

"Having in the course of these labors discovered the unsatisfactory condition of the Septuagint text and his friends pleading the need of a translation direct from the Hebrew, Jerome began this huge task…"
–International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

"Acceptance of the Vulgate as an authorized version came only slowly"
—The Church in Ancient Society, Chadwick

"Jerome’s work was not universally accepted and in fact would not become the dominant Biblical text for over two hundred years."
–Vulgate Old Testament Reader, Goins

"Jerome traveled and eventually settled in Bethlehem, where he would supervise a monastery for thirty years and work on his translation of the Old Testament…Around 390 Jerome decided that he should make greater use of the Hebrew original in his Old Testament translations."
–Vulgate Old Testament Reader, Goins

But Jerome soon recognized the poor and unsatisfactory state of the Greek texts that he was obliged to use. This turned his mind and thought to the original Hebrew. Friends, too, urged him to translate certain books from the original text. As a resultant of long thought, and in answer to many requests, Jerome spent fifteen years, 390 to 405, on a new translation of the Old Testament from the original Hebrew text.
–Jewish Encylopedia*

 

[NPS]

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

“But it is as a Bible translator that Jerome is most justly famous, and in particular as the translator of ‘the Vulgate’. We now use ‘Vulgate’ to mean ‘Jerome’s Bible’. Yet this use, given universal currency by the Council of Trent, cannot be traced further back than the thirteenth century. In Jerome’s day editio vulgata, (the common edition) when applied to the Latin Bible meant what we now call ‘the Old Latin’ as distinct from ‘the Vulgate’—that is the popular Bible, which Jerome’s work ultimately replaced…in the process of time, Jerome’s new version had made it’s way and supplanted the Old Latin…”
–Cambridge History of the Bible

“Jerome did not set out at the start to produce a new bible. As we have seen, he was set on his course as a translator by Damasus, and Damasus commissioned him, so far as is known for certain, to produce a revised version of the Old Latin Gospels only.”
** --Cambridge History of the Bible**

“So Jerome decided to start afresh and produce his own translation of the ‘Hebrew verity’ (Hebraica veritas)”
–Cambridge History of the Bible

“From the beginning of the eighth century onwards, apart from a few insignificant exceptions, the contents of “The Vulgate” were fixed, namely: (i) Jerome’s version of the Jewish canonical books (apart from the Psalter)–translated direct from the Hebrew: (ii) Jerome’s “Gallican” Psalter—a radical revision of the Old Latin, based on the Hexaplaric Septuagint; (iii) Jerome’s free translations from the ‘Chaldee’–i.e. Tobit and Judith; (iv) certain unrevised Old Latin ‘ecclesiastical’ books–Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, 1 and 2 Maccabees, and Baruch; (v) Jerome’s revised gospels; and (vi) Acts, epistles, and Revelation–revised by a person or persons unknown.”
–Cambridge History of the Bible

*"[The apocrypha] clearly enjoyed a considerable popularity in different circles in Judaism, including the Qumran community. Indeed, it is evident from the fragments found at Qumran that the extent of this literature was considerably greater than previously been realized."/I]
–Cambridge History of the Bible

Cassiodorus monastery around the year 700 was when “we first hear of a ‘pandect’ (i.e. a complete bible) containing Jerome’s versions”.
–Cambridge History of the Bible

*“Books like Judith, Tobit and the Wisdom of Solomon he [Jerome] was ready to use within the Church as freely and as authoritatively as any other part of the Old Testament”./*I]
–Cambridge History of the Bible

"…during this stay in Rome he was entrusted by the pope in 383/4 with the task of 'restoring the New Testament to it’s Greek original"
—The Story of the Bible, Wansbrough

"Now in Bethlehem, he gradually realized that he must turn from the Greek Bible to what he came to call the Hebraica veritas, the Hebrew text of the bible."
—The Story of the Bible, Wansbrough

"By 390…he realized that in order to prevent the Jews continuing to reproach the Church…he must translate directly from the Hebrew…So he began his greatest and most lasting work."
—The Story of the Bible, Wansbrough

"Having in the course of these labors discovered the unsatisfactory condition of the Septuagint text and his friends pleading the need of a translation direct from the Hebrew, Jerome began this huge task…"
–International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

"Acceptance of the Vulgate as an authorized version came only slowly"
—The Church in Ancient Society, Chadwick

"Jerome’s work was not universally accepted and in fact would not become the dominant Biblical text for over two hundred years."
–Vulgate Old Testament Reader, Goins

"Jerome traveled and eventually settled in Bethlehem, where he would supervise a monastery for thirty years and work on his translation of the Old Testament…Around 390 Jerome decided that he should make greater use of the Hebrew original in his Old Testament translations."
–Vulgate Old Testament Reader, Goins

But Jerome soon recognized the poor and unsatisfactory state of the Greek texts that he was obliged to use. This turned his mind and thought to the original Hebrew. Friends, too, urged him to translate certain books from the original text. As a resultant of long thought, and in answer to many requests, Jerome spent fifteen years, 390 to 405, on a new translation of the Old Testament from the original Hebrew text.
–Jewish Encylopedia*

 

[Thal59]

Wow, that’s a lot of names.

Where do they refute de Hamel?

Now you are just wasting time, Steadfast.

You ask the question in the title of your thread… “Why did the RCC change the bible.” You then offer a collection of quotes from one Dr. De Hamel. The gist of the opening post is that St. Jerome produced a bible that did not have the deuterocanonicals in them, and that the RCC later included them, thus “changing” the bible.

But it has been shown you, many times now, that Jerome did not produce a bible in the sense that you or De Hamel are arguing. It has been shown many times now that Jerome had no authority to set the canon, or to determine what is authentically inspired and what is not. It has been demonstrated that the canon of the bible, whenever it was first compiled, is identical to the canon of the Catholic bible today.

Now you ask the shallow question of how the many names I offered refute de Hamil. The people named above have numerous Doctorates in Sacred Scripture, Sacred Theology, Divinity, Biblical History, Biblical languages, etc. **By virtue of the fact that they devote their time and effort into the preparation of a bible that bears the books that De Hamel suggests were not acceptable by Jerome, these men attest and verify that they do belong there. **

This is a clear refutation of both De Hamel and of whatever unathorized canonical opinions Jerome may have had. These men, and the many thousands who have preceeded them, stake their educations, scholarly opinions, reputations, and their faith on their belief that the so-called “deuterocanonicals” are indeed inspired and belong in the bible as the church has always declared they should be.

The very essence of this thread is both false and pejorative. The RCC has never changed its canon. Jerome never had authority to determine what is protocanonical and what is deuterocanonical. And Dr. De Hamel, whom you seem to think is God’s own intellectual brain-trust, is arguably not qualified to give an opinion on the subject. I am not saying that he is definately not qualified, I am saying I can argue his credentials on the subject. So why should I waste any more time trying to hold thousands upon thousands of Catholic scholars to his standard as if he is an irrefutable source?

Steadfast, if you had multiple degrees in scripture, history, theology, etc., and you were certain that the books like Judith and Tobit were not inspired and did not belong in the bible, would you freely cooperate with the production and promulgaion of a bible that does incorporate them as canonical?

If you wish to continue blindly adhering to Dr. De Hamel’s personal opinion, that is your prerogative. But the question of this thread has been answered several times, and with much more scope than the de Hamel quotes you initially offered. If you wish to waste more time continuing a pointless argument over all of this, then that is your choice.

Thal59

 

[Steadfast]

Thanks for all your fine responses and your hard work.

I am going to go ahead and note that beyond a faithful acceptance of the story that Jerome included the OT Deuteros, there isn’t any evidence that he actually did so.

I could have begun this thread by simply asking if Jerome had included them, that I’d heard that he had but that I’d always doubted it and could anyone substantiate it?

Perhaps I have been disengenuous in adducing the testimony I have rather than beginning the thread this way but I thought it might be useful to indicate what had prompted my doubt in the matter.

Nonetheless this thread has gone into two fora and has stretched to two pages without my question having been answered beyond repeated expressions of faith in the story long received and retold that Jerome, prevailed upon by the Pope, did in fact include them or, alternately, that it doesn’t matter because Jerome isn’t The Church.

The first answer is an expression of belief but is meaningless to our discussion and the second fails to answer the question because the question isn’t whether the Church was right or wrong to go back to the canon Jerome rejected but rather whether he rejected them or included them at all (the thread title notwithstanding; I explained that it was purposely provocative).

I have never questioned whether the Churches canon was, ordinarily and majoritatively, the canon as your church has it today. I did not maintain that Jerome ratified the Protestant canon over the objection of the Bishops of your church though it has pleased some of you to pretend that I have.

The question comes not only from running into the claim that Jerome included the texts though he doubted their canonicity, but also from the claim that Luther removed books from the Bible.

It comes because Luther is often roundly castigated for doing so, but Jerome is assumed not to have when at least this one “expert” denies that he did.

Can you see the irony?

On the one hand, Luther, who never did remove a single book from the Bible is pilloried and lied about while Jerome who very well may have removed books from the Bible is lied about in the other direction (at least as Dr. de Hamel presents it and I admit his is only one testimony) when Catholics maintain what they cannot prove; that he did, in fact include the Deuteros.

And when you attempt the nuclear option and say that it doesn’t matter whether he did or not since he is not The Church and his opinion, whether he acted on it or not, was overruled by the Church anyway, you are caught in an even deeper irony:

Why doesn’t it matter when Jerome does it, but it’s a big deal when Luther does; or rather, more properly, why is the very idea that one could leave books out of the Bible such a big deal that it is attributed to Luther even though Luther never actually did so, when it appears that Jerome may actually have done so and is either given a pass or history is (apparently) revised to make him more consonant with the prevailing magisterial view?

 

[NotWorthy]

But Steadfast, you keep demanding proof from us, and yet you haven’t provided any proof, other than a degree on the wall.

 

[Steadfast]

But Steadfast, you keep demanding proof from us, and yet you haven’t provided any proof, other than a degree on the wall.

I’ve given a quote by an expert in ancient manuscripts.

You guys have given nothing.

I fear that even if I were to try and give you more, I’d still only get more nothing.

Let’s cut to the chase, I’ll boil it down to three questions, forget about de Hamel for a moment:

1. 
   *]Did Jerome include the Deuteros in his translation of the Bible?
   *]How do you know that he did or did not?
   *]If he didn’t, or if you cannot verify that he did beyond appeals to received belief in the matter, why is he given a pass for even possibly doing what you regularly pillory Luther for having done even though Luther didn’t?

 

[NotWorthy]

I’ve given a quote by an expert in ancient manuscripts.

You guys have given nothing.

I fear that even if I were to try and give you more, I’d still only get more nothing.

Let’s cut to the chase, I’ll boil it down to three questions, forget about de Hamel for a moment:

1. 
   *]Did Jerome include the Deuteros in his translation of the Bible?
   *]How do you know that he did or did not?
   *]If he didn’t, or if you cannot verify that he did beyond appeals to received belief in the matter, why is he given a pass for even possibly doing what you regularly pillory Luther for having done even though Luther didn’t?

1. 
   OK, I’ll cut to the chase, as well.
   1. Though Jerome didn’t want to include the deutero’s, he accepted the decision of the Catholic Church and the Pope and ultimately included them.
   2. Because Catholic Tradition tells us to.
   3. He’s given a pass because, unlike Luther, he accepted the authority of the Church.
   What proof do you have:
   1. Jerome didn’t think they were Canonical.
   2. They are in the Vulgate
   3. Hence the Catholic Church must have eased them back in over time.
   We’ve asked you for proof, and all you can say is, “Hey, he’s a doctor”.
   
   Until someone provides proof to the contrary, the accepted opinion will always stay the same. The ball is in yours and Dr. de Hamel’s court.

 

[NPS]

Steadfast, I don’t think you have any idea what you want to ask.
You bounce all around and ignore everyone’s information.
I don’t think you understand the differences between “translation”, “canon” and “bible”. I don’t think you understand what the bible is. I don’t think you understand how the bible was put together. I don’t think you understand what Jerome did. I don’t think you understand Christian history. I don’t think you understand Jewish history.

I think you are an agitator who argues in soundbites.
I think you’ve found something on the web that you think gives you some sort of “gotcha” against Catholics, but are unsure how to use it.

Jerome did not make a bible. Jerome was a translator.
What later became the Vulgate included:
*Jerome’s Latin translations of the Gospels from the Greek;
*Other people’s Latin translations of Acts and the Epistles from the Greek;
*Jerome’s Latin translations of the Old Testament books from Hebrew;
*a few of Jerome’s Latin translations of Old Testament books from the Greek and Aramaic;
*some other people’s newer Latin translations of the Old Testament from the Greek;
*some other people’s older Latin translations from the Greek.

Jerome did not produce a “bible” himself. Jerome translated books which make up the “bible”. His work was combined with others to later form the “Vulgate”. It is commonly called “Jerome’s Vulgate” because most of the work was done by him. The Church used the deuterocanon before Jerome’s time, during Jerome’s time, after Jerome’s time, and still uses them today.

 

[Steadfast]

NPS, please stop ignoring my question and answering the one you want to answer.

I was trained by Jesuits, I can ask the same question 18 different ways if I want to, it’s just too darned bad if you can realize that the question is actually the same one dressed differently.

Steadfast, I don’t think you have any idea what you want to ask.
You bounce all around and ignore everyone’s information.
I don’t think you understand the differences between “translation”, “canon” and “bible”. I don’t think you understand what the bible is. I don’t think you understand how the bible was put together. I don’t think you understand what Jerome did. I don’t think you understand Christian history. I don’t think you understand Jewish history.

I think you are an agitator who argues in soundbites.
I think you’ve found something on the web that you think gives you some sort of “gotcha” against Catholics, but are unsure how to use it.

Jerome did not make a bible. Jerome was a translator.
What later became the Vulgate included:
*Jerome’s Latin translations of the Gospels from the Greek;
*Other people’s Latin translations of Acts and the Epistles from the Greek;
*Jerome’s Latin translations of the Old Testament books from Hebrew;
*a few of Jerome’s Latin translations of Old Testament books from the Greek and Aramaic;
*some other people’s newer Latin translations of the Old Testament from the Greek;
*some other people’s older Latin translations from the Greek.

Jerome did not produce a “bible” himself. Jerome translated books which make up the “bible”. His work was combined with others to later form the “Vulgate”. It is commonly called “Jerome’s Vulgate” because most of the work was done by him. The Church used the deuterocanon before Jerome’s time, during Jerome’s time, after Jerome’s time, and still uses them today.

 

[Steadfast]

1. Though Jerome didn’t want to include the deutero’s, he accepted the decision of the Catholic Church and the Pope and ultimately included them.

Okay

1. Because Catholic Tradition tells us to.

Where?

1. He’s given a pass because, unlike Luther, he accepted the authority of the Church.

So, it’s not a question of justice to dead men then is it? It’s an opportunity to flay Luther and no opportunity to do so, even if it involves lying about him will be missed?

1. Jerome didn’t think they were Canonical.

Your own sources admit that he didn’t think they were canonical, at least at one point. This isn’t in dispute.

1. They are in the Vulgate

And they cannot possibly have been added later from existing Old Latin manuscripts because, why? Oh, that’s right, because “Traditions” says so, though no one can tell me where it does.

1. Hence the Catholic Church must have eased them back in over time.

Okay, which is it? Did Jerome translate and include them or were they “eased in over time”?

We’ve asked you for proof, and all you can say is, “Hey, he’s a doctor”.

It’s more than you’ve given.

Until someone provides proof to the contrary, the accepted opinion will always stay the same. The ball is in yours and Dr. de Hamel’s court.

You don’t really have a clue how to do this do you?

It’s like playing catch; I throw it to you and then, YOU THROW IT BACK.

You don’t keep insisting that I throw you another ball!

 

[Steadfast]

Here’s from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

In the Latin Church, all through the Middle Ages we find evidence of hesitation about the character of the deuterocanonicals. There is a current friendly to them, another one distinctly unfavourable to their authority and sacredness, while wavering between the two are a number of writers whose veneration for these books is tempered by some perplexity as to their exact standing, and among those we note St. Thomas Aquinas. Few are found to unequivocally acknowledge their canonicity.

Now, this does not say that they were non-canonical but it does describe the atmosphere into which Luther was born on matters pertaining to the canonicity of these books.

It is noticeable that the article from NA doesn’t assume the 4th and 5th century councils to trump all this but merely explains that it was how things were. Later, the article does not say that Jerome translated them but that his remarks in the prologus were “perplexing” to many medieval scholars, among them Aquinas who seemed to have been ambivalent at best about their canonicity.

Anyhow, it seems clear that in the 16th century, drawing the conclusion that the OT Deuteros were not canonical was nowhere near the cause for general handwringing and crying among the Catholic faithful that it is today, and yet, still, Luther is defamed for having removed these books.

But still, when you look at copies of his Deutsche Bibel, there they are, in an appendix, but nonetheless present and painstakingly translated by the great Reformer himself.

So, why all the castigation? Why all the lies? Why is it said so often that Luther left them out? That Luther left out “a lot of books”? Even his opinions on a number of New Testament books, even though they changed over time, were but scholarly opinions that were by no means problematic since he was merely rearticulating much of the early church’s trepidation with regard to them.

And yet, so much time is wasted flaying Luther over this stuff.

I have asked why and NotWorthy has answered me. And his answer is very revealing.

It seems very clear that no opportunity will be passed up to flay Luther, he is so hated. The facts of a claim against him do not have to be checked, all that matters is that the claim goes against him and it is enough to repeat it.

You should care more for the truth. You shouldn’t be so afraid of old father Luther.

If you really believe that no matter what storm of controversy comes, your church will prevail then you certainly have the time and liberty to be more careful and to make sure that your children are properly taught in these matters.

If nothing else it would save me and others like me the headache of having to set them straight for you, over and over and over again.

 

[vladimir998]

St. Jerome DID NOT REMOVE THE DEUTEROCANONICALS from his translation. He considered doing so. He went back-and-forth as to whether or not they were inspired. He did include them in his translation.

Luther also included them – in an unpaginated appendix. He did the same for several New Testament books. Martin Luther DID NOT BELIEVE St. James’ epistle and several other NT books were inspired. He called that epistle an epistle of straw, for instance. He also said he had the desire to burn St. James’ epistle.

Not only does sola scriptura not exist in scripture it apparently makes some want to burn Biblical books!

 

[Steadfast]

1. In defense of the position that

St. Jerome DID NOT REMOVE THE DEUTEROCANONICALS from his translation. He considered doing so. He went back-and-forth as to whether or not they were inspired. He did include them in his translation.

Would you care to offer the testimony of a scholar with at least similar credentials to the one I cite in the original post of this thread?

1. With regard to this:

Luther also included them – in an unpaginated appendix. He did the same for several New Testament books. Martin Luther DID NOT BELIEVE St. James’ epistle and several other NT books were inspired. He called that epistle an epistle of straw, for instance. He also said he had the desire to burn St. James’ epistle.

You’re simply mistaken, the NT Canon of his Deutsche Bibel is exactly the sams as the one you find in your trusty Douai-Rheims.

As for him wanting to “burn” the Epistle of James. That’s a new one. I know that early in his career he called it “an epistle of straw” but I also know that as he matured his opinion of it improved rather dramatically until he came to describe it as containing many excellent passages.

If you’d be so kind, could you show me where Luther said he wanted to burn it?

And yet, even so, it wouldn’t bother me too terribly if he did say that, or something like it. Luther said a lot of strange things, many of which were copied from verbal discourses and garbled by scribes.

This is why scholars generally reject the Tischereden, or “TableTalk” as evidential of his thought or opinion.

It doesn;t stop Catholics, I know.

Believe me, I know.

 

[Orionthehunter]

It appears that people have started talking past each other.

While interesting, Jerome’s thoughts on what should be included in the Canon is really irrelevant to the big picture. Jerome was tasked with translating Scripture. He had no more authority than anyone on this thread to determine canonicity.

Additionally, this argument of de Hamel and somehow that it has to be addressed point by point is ludicrous. Essentially this is the extreme of non-Catholic thought in some circles that each of us can personally interpret Scripture to a point where we now get to personally interpret which books are actually inspired. I thought it went the other way- God tells us what He wants and we listen and not we get to choose what we listen to.

 

[patrick457]

A bit off-topic, but I once found a ‘Christopher De Hamel’ being listed as authenticating a Medieval Book of Hours. Is this the same De Hamel or another one?

Of course, The NT canon is the same since Luther finally decided to leave James in the NT.

Steadfast, If I might ask, what exactly is the point of this discussion?

Just as others pointed out rather repeatedly, Jerome does not have the Authority to determine which Book goes into the Bible just as we who post here do not have the authority to do so either. He might be a Church Father, but he is not infallible in deeds or words.
And just because De Hamel has credentials does not mean we should just believe whatever he says.
He (or We, for that matter) is just a human being.

Just because he theorized that the Deuteros are put in there after Jerome’s death does not mean that it is true.

Just because he has degrees and titles attached to his name does not mean he is the number one authority.

Call me a denier or arrogant Roman or something, but I’ll admit I’m a bit of a Doubting Thomas. So thus I’ll challenge you and the other posters:

Steadfast, please, if you will be so kind, give evidence that Jerome did not translate the Deuteros and they were included after his death aside from De Hamel’s theory and degrees.

Other posters here, you could also give evidence to the contrary.

All of you should give evidence to back up your claims, to be fair.

 

[Steadfast]

Okay, I’m going to go ahead and leave this conversation where it is.

You are, obviously, not going to satisfy my request, which is very simple, really.

All I have asked for is a rebutting testimony from some authority roughly equal in stature to that of Dr. de Hamel.

That’s all. Nothing more than that.

I have stated my reasons over and over and over again. I have been consistent throughout this discussion in explaining what I wanted and why I wanted it.

I’m not going to do it anymore.

I’ll watch the thread and hopefully someone will come along with what I’ve requested. Until then I am not going to pretend that I won anything here. I didn’t find the de Hamel quote because I was looking for it. We all carry unsubstantiated presuppositions around with us, like yours that Jerome translated and included the Deuteros.

Who knows, maybe he did.

De Hamel certainly knows more than I do and as far as I can tell, more than you do, and he says Jerome didn’t. I’m not taking a stand. I just hope that you’ll be interested enough in truth to consider his opinion and seek your own satisfaction on the matter and when you have that you’ll share your findings here.

One last time though, I really don’t care if Jerome had the “authority” to determine canon or not. That’s a tangent.

I am merely asking you to substantiate the claim (which de Hamel clearly disputes) that Jerome at one time didn’t want to include the OT deuteros but was prevailed upon by “the Church” to do so and, in “holy obedience”, did in fact include them.

It’s something I hear all the time and I’d just like to see it backed up.

That’s all.

 

[NotWorthy]

I’m not sure if this horse is dead, or if it deserves another beating, but just to make sure, I found this on another thread that just started. I found it interesting:

When I read such statements by St. Jerome:

"Does not the SCRIPTURE say: 'Burden not thyself above thy power[SIRACH 13:2] " [Jerome, *To Eustochium, Epistle 108 (A.D. 404), in NPNF2, VI:207]

“Do not, my dearest brother, estimate my worth by the number of my years. Gray hairs are not wisdom; it is wisdom which is as good as gray hairs At least that is what Solomon says: 'wisdom is the gray hair unto men.’ [Wisdom 4:9]" Moses too in choosing the seventy elders is told to take those whom he knows to be elders indeed, and to select them not for their years but for their discretion (Num. 11:16)? And, as a boy, Daniel judges old men and in the flower of youth condemns the incontinence of age** (Daniel 13:55-59, or Story of Susannah 55-59, only found in the Catholic Bibles)” [Jerome, *To Paulinus, Epistle 58 (A.D. 395), in NPNF2, VI:119]

“I would cite the words of the psalmist: 'the sacrifices of God are a broken spirit,’ [Ps 51:17] and those of Ezekiel ‘I prefer the repentance of a sinner rather than his death,’ [Ez 18:23] AND THOSE OF BARUCH,*’*Arise, arise, O Jerusalem,’ [Baruch 5:5] AND MANY OTHER PROCLAMATIONS MADE BY THE TRUMPETS OF THE PROPHETS.” [Jerome, *To Oceanus, Epistle 77:4 (A.D. 399), in NPNF2, VI:159]

“Still our merriment** must not forget the limit set by Scripture,** and we must not stray too far from the boundary of our wrestling-ground. Your presents, indeed, **remind me of the sacred volume, **for in it Ezekiel decks Jerusalem with bracelets, (Eze. 16:11) Baruch receives letters from Jeremiah,(Jer. 36, Bar. 6) and the Holy Spirit descends in the form of a dove at the baptism of Christ. (Mt. 3:16)” [Jerome, *To Eustochium, Epistle 31:2 (A.D. 384), in NPNF2, VI:45]

I see that although he felt they should not be in the canon, he certainly saw them as being authoritative and edifying.

 

[Steadfast]

Jerome held the common opinion about the Deuteros for most of his life, but his opinion underwent a change as he translated. De Hamel and others attribute this to relationships he developed with the Palestinian Rabbi’s who helped him with his Hebrew.

His opposition to the canonicity of the Deuteros seems to date to the beginning of the first decade of the fifth century (c.400 AD).