Posted on 09/30/2004 6:44:32 AM PDT by Salvation
Patron of Librarians
Please pray, through the intercession of St. Jerome, for all scripture
scholars and for all who help others come to a greater understanding
of Sacred Scripture.
Looks like we could all pray to St. Jerome and ask him to guide the bishops who are working on the new ICEL translation for U. S. churches!!!!!!
| Thursday, September 30, 2004 St. Jerome, Priest, Doctor of the Church (Memorial) |
||
|
Amen! I've heard that St. Jerome could be quite a curmudgeon and didn't suffer fools gladly. I've also heard that he had a deep love and devotion to Jesus and Mary, and did many penances for his weaknesses. May St. Jerome guide the work on the new ICEL...we could use a few St. Jerome's in our day!
This is the quote from Jerome I especially like.
I have acquiesced to your 5 request (or should I say demand!): and, my other set aside, from which I was forcibly restrained, I have given a single night's work 6, translating according to sense rather than verbatim. I have hacked away at the excessively error-ridden panoply of the many codices; I conveyed in Latin only what I could find expressed coherently in the Chaldean words. Receive the widow Judith, example of chastity, and with triumphant praise acclaim her with eternal public celebration. For not only for women, but even for men, she has been given as a model by the one who rewards her chastity, who has ascribed to her such virtue that she conquered the unconquered among humanity, and surmounted the insurmountable.
It was when the Pope realized Jerome hadn’t translated any of the apocrypha books into his Latin Vulgate, which was made from Hebrew to Latin, because there were no apocryphal books in the Hebrew text.
The Church sent men to his home who wore pointy towed shoes and pin-stripped robes to forcibly make him translate Tobit and Judith, and to include his famous preface/prologue so people would believe it was from Jerome.
Have any of you ever read the whole story of your Latin Vulgate Bible that Jerome worked so hard to keep pure and how they corrupted it by adding some eighteen non canonical books to it after he was finished?
You can find most of it in your own history.
JH :)
What's the source of your "quote"?
Sorry I'm so late, I'm still cleaning up from Jeanne.
My source is ccel
JH :)
I'm pretty sure that St. Jerome's Vulgate had the same so-called "non canonical" books* in it that modern Catholic Bibles have. We have 73 books in ours, your truncated-by-Luther version has 66, and 73 minus 66 is still 7, not 18, even under new math.
*Protestants have no grounds on which to judge the canonicity of a single book in the Bible, so for a Protestant to call anything "non canonical" is for him to engage in "non sense". The very word "canon" means "rule," and if all of your rules are supposed to come from the Bible, that leaves you no source for a rule by which to judge the Bible.
The 1452AD The Gutenberg Bible was a reproduction of the Jerome Latin Vulgate, and it had 18 apocrypha books listed before Pope Sixtus made his Bible, and then a little later the Sixtus-Clementine removed all but 7 of them, and 5 additions, and they discarded 6 that had been in it.
These were not in Jerome’s Bible, and he'd have rolled over in his grave if he had known what they did to his Bible.
JH :)
You no doubt understand that the Bible isn't St. Jeromes' creation, it is the Catholic Churchs' under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and that the discovery of ancient Hebrew copies of some of the Deuterocanonicals at Qumran proves that Jeromes' personal comments were unfounded. Jeromes' job was to translate not determine Canon. The Septuagint, or Alexandrian Canon, came into existence at least 225 years prior to the Hebrew Canon at Jamnia in 100 AD. Also, take a look at what St. Augustine had to say in response to St. Jeromes' prudential statements regarding the Deuterocanonicals, as well as the Councils of Nicaea, Hippo and Carthage.
Your right, Protestants, or non-Catholics have no right to judge the Catholic Churches decision on which books they wanted in their Bible. On the other hand the Catholic Church has no right to judge them for trusting the Hebrew Scripture, since it was the Jews who were given the responsibility for the oracles of God.
How could God find fault with that decision?
The term ”canonical scripture” had meant those books that were read and accepted as Gods inspired words to Israel for hundreds of years. Christians were given the New Testament for their inspired word of God. Why did the Catholic Church feel it had the right to mess with the Old Testament of the Jews?
Jerome refused to continue translating the Old Testament from the Greek LXX, because it had become so corrupted it couldn’t be used for proof text. Jerome understood the only pure translation was the Hebrew text, but then after all the work he put in to it, at his own expense, your Church corrupted it by adding seven extra deuteros and 4 additions that had never been approved for inclusion in the Bible.
The Greek Orthodox uses all 18 apocrypha books, you use 12, and we NC’s chose to use none of them for the same reason your Church threw out 6 that had originally been slipped into Jerome’s Bible after he died. It was because you didn’t believe they were inspired, and that’s also our belief about all of them.
All the problems these books have caused over the years, for your Church, and with those who dissented, and there isn’t one thing in any of them that have anything to do with our Salvation. And on top of that they were in the Old Testament. Go figure. :)
The reason I defend my belief is in hopes of getting through to Catholics, that you have no monopoly on God, or the Bible, or on truth. Christ is the living head, and we are all members of His body, and we all need each other to function properly.
JH :)
It was Jerome’s creation from the Hebrew text which your Church accepted as fully inspired all except the apocrypha books, which you decreed inspired and canonical in 1546AD. They were in Jerome’s Bible, and they were read in the church at times, but there had been no official laws stating it.
There was no need of a Canon Law to decree the Hebrew Old Testament canonical, or the 27 books of the New Testament, it was a given. It was the addition of the apocrypha that made the Canon Law necessary, so you could legally enforce it on others.
The Qumran proves nothing, except that there are a few fragments of Tobit that may have been translated from Greek to Hebrew before they were hidden away. Whose to say they didn’t enjoy reading a fictional book now and then? I forget, were there any other writings or non- Biblical books with them besides the Bible?
JH :)
382-384 Pope Damasus I has Jerome revise and unify Latin Bibles
384 Jerome presents Pope Damasus I with new Latin Gospels, originals lost
384-399 Pope Siricius, 38th Pope, criticized Jerome
400? Vulgate Bible, by Jerome?, (340?-420) originals lost, Vulgate Latin text becomes standard Western Christian Bible
400? Jerome cites "expanded" ending in Mark after Mark 16,14
400? Jerome adds Pericope of the Adultress (John 7,53-8,11)
420 St. Jerome, (S.E. Hieronymus), b.340?, Latin scholar; (Loeb Classics)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1228933/posts
The Woman Taken In Adultery (John 7:53-8:11)
The story of the woman taken in adultery (called the pericope de adultera) has been rather harshly treated by the modern English versions.
The R.V. and the A.S.V. put it in brackets; the R.S.V. relegates it to the footnotes; the N.E.B. follows Westcott and Hort in removing it from its customary place altogether and printing it at the end of the Gospel of John as an independent fragment of unknown origin.
The N.E.B. even gives this familiar narrative a new name, to wit, An Incident In the Temple. But as Burgon has reminded us long ago, this general rejection of these precious verses is unjustifiable.
(a) Ancient Testimony Concerning the Pericope de Adultera (John 7:53-8:11)
The story of the woman taken in adultery was a problem also in ancient
con't
http://www.bible-researcher.com/adult-hills.html
So he only created a few books - kinda slid them in there on us on the sly - but all the others he actually translated? Yeah right.
This is a first. I have never heard that excuse as to why the books were removed - its the silliest excuse I have ever heard - so far.
Jerome was the first man to translate the Hebrew text directly to Latin. He was forced by the authorities of the Church to translate Tobit and Judith against his will, but his Bible had already been finished prior to this, so he prefaced them with his famous “helmeted prologus” thinking they would place them outside the accepted canon of the Hebrews.
The LXX Latin Vulgate that had been translated from the Greek to Latin years before the Hebrew, was being used at the time Jerome did his. The Septuagint LXX continued being used in the Church, and around 600AD the new Jerome Latin Version came out, but it was not the same one Jerome had made.
Jerom had told his friend Paula that the apocrypha was not to be used in Church decisions, and that he would place them in as appendix, and clearly mark them so there would be no confusion in the matter.
Jerome did no other translations of the Apocrypha except those two, and the others were taken from the Septuagint, and didn’t have his preface, which always identified Jerome’s work.
This is a first. I have never heard that excuse as to why the books were removed - its the silliest excuse I have ever heard - so far.
Then it appears you’ve found another subject besides, “Mary Ever Virgin” that you’ve not done your homework on. Get busy. : )
JH :)
BTTT on the Memorial of St. Jerome, Priest and Doctor of the Church, September 30, 2005!
BTTT on the Memorial of St. Jerome, Priest and Doctor of the Church, September 30, 2005!
"Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.