A little clarification of the Bible here.
Bel and the Dragon is part of the Book of Daniel. Protestants don't have it in theirs because it is not in the Hebrew Canon.
The Hebrew Canon was decided on by the Jews at the Council of Jamniah, circa 90 AD. It was specifically in reaction to, and to replace, the older Septuagint Greek Canon, which was the only Jewish "Bible" per se from the period of about 200 BC until 90 AD.
When the Gospels and epistles refer to "The Scriptures" they are certainly not referring to the New Testament...it wasn't written yet. And they were not referring to the Hebrew Canon or the Masoretic Text, because they weren't chosen or written yet either. They were referring to a rather amorphous bunch of Jewish Scriptures, the ONLY compendium of which was in general use was the Septuagint.
The canon of Jesus and the Apostles was the Septuagint Canon. There was no other until 90 AD, by which time, of course, Jesus and most of the Apostles were dead.
The Septuagint Bible has in it all of the books that are present in the Old Testament of the Catholic and Orthodox Bibles...Tobit, the Maccabbees, Judith, and the long versions of Daniel and Esther, among other things. This was generally used by the Church, and in various councils from Damascus to Carthage was verified. Jerome, alone, it is true, preferred the Hebrew Canon for the Vulgate, but importantly, he was overridden by the Pope (Pope Damasus) who followed the previous Councils.
More importantly, Jerome ACCEPTED the Pope and the Council's authority. When he made his Vulgate translation, it includes the books of the Septuagint that are not in the Hebrew Canon. So, yes, there is an argument in writing of Jerome in favor of the Hebrew Canon, against the much older Septuagint Canon (90 AD vs. 200 BC), but Jerome not only lost that argument, but accepted the opinion of the wider Church on the subject and made his translation of the full Septuagint Canon, and NOT the Hebrew Canon which he had EARLIER stated he preferred. He was convinced to change his mind.
I won't say that it's disingenuous to cite Jerome's argument. Clearly Jerome was sincere. And this was a long time ago, few people really know the whole history, and therefore that Jerome was persuaded to abandon his position and adopt the general teaching of the Church is not generally known.
We should point out that the original King James Translation of 1611 included the deuterocanonical books (the so-called "apocraypha") and it was only later that they were excluded, as the English Church itself became persuaded by the arguments of the Lutherans and others in favor of the Hebrew Canon.
The best argument for the Septuagint Canon of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches is that it is almost 300 years older than the Hebrew Canon, it was the only Biblical compendium in existence in Jesus' day (so when Jesus refers to the Scriptures, or the Apostles do, they are referring to the Septuagint, the only Bible as such then in existence), and the Jews chose to get rid of the Septuagint Canon in favor of the Hebrew Canon (later the Masoretic Text) because there are elements in the deuterocanonical books that rather strongly favor the Christian argument over the Jewish opposition. The Jews at Jamnia chose the expedient of simply eliminating those books from their Bible so that the Christians would no longer be able to rely upon them in arguing for conversion from Jews.
Luther's decision in favor of the Hebrew Canon is interesting, but we needn't go into it here, because it's not germane to the topic.
Jesus' and John's and James' and Peter's Bible...the ONLY Bible at the time...was the Septuagint of circa 200 BC. Catholics and the Orthodox have always used that Canon. The Jews adopted their own, new and abridged Canon in 90 AD.
The Protestants later adopted the Hebrew Canon, and not the Septuagint Canon, for their own reasons, part of which was an understandable historical misunderstanding that the Hebrew Canon was actually older than the Septuagint Canon of the Catholics, but that turns out to have been a misconception.
Not much point in arguing about it, really.
It's unfair to cite to Jerome to argue for the Hebrew Canon, since he was himself persuaded to change his mind and his Vulgate is based on the Septuagint Canon.
I may break this post into a couple of sections, rather then one long post that may turn any interested readers off. I have done a lot of work on this subject and I pray someone will benefit from it.
A little clarification of the Bible here.
Bel and the Dragon is part of the Book of Daniel. Protestants don't have it in theirs because it is not in the Hebrew Canon.
You forgot to mention Susanna, and The Prayer of Three Children.
The Hebrew Canon was decided on by the Jews at the Council of Jamniah, circa 90 AD. It was specifically in reaction to, and to replace, the older Septuagint Greek Canon, which was the only Jewish "Bible" per se from the period of about 200 BC until 90 AD
There’s no proof of what was accomplished at the council of Jamniah, and Jewish sites deny the meeting had anything to do with the canon. You are right though, the Hebrew canon was never listed as we see it today, but that was because it was read in the synagogues and Temple all the time, and it was assumed that everyone knew they were the inspired words of God. There was no need for a strict canon until it became an issue.
It was the same thing your Church faced when the reformers began to question the canonicity of the apocrypha books, and the Church found it had no strict laws in place to enforce their additional books, so the Council of Trent was called on to make their canon a Church law with teeth.
When the Gospels and epistles refer to "The Scriptures" they are certainly not referring to the New Testament...it wasn't written yet.
That’s correct
And they were not referring to the Hebrew Canon or the Masoretic Text, because they weren't chosen or written yet either. They were referring to a rather amorphous bunch of Jewish Scriptures, the ONLY compendium of which was in general use was the Septuagint.
Your right in using the term, “in general use.” Many Jews had to copy the Torah in their lifetime, so there were plenty personal copies and manuscripts available.
The canon of Jesus and the Apostles was the Septuagint Canon. There was no other until 90 AD, by which time, of course, Jesus and most of the Apostles were dead.
I doubt that the LXX had an organized canon either. Remember, it was taken from Hebrew manuscripts three hundred years or so prior, and if the Jews didn’t have an official listing in Jesus day, there’s not much chance they had one in Egypt 300 years earlier.
The Septuagint Bible has in it all of the books that are present in the Old Testament of the Catholic and Orthodox Bibles...Tobit, the Maccabbees, Judith, and the long versions of Daniel and Esther, among other things.
The Greek Orthodox kept all 18 of the apocrypha books, but the Catholic Church rejected six of them. If the acid test was how many of the apocrypha you kept, then the Orthodox won hands down. :) Lol
This was generally used by the Church, and in various councils from Damascus to Carthage was verified. Jerome, alone, it is true, preferred the Hebrew Canon for the Vulgate, but importantly, he was overridden by the Pope (Pope Damasus) who followed the previous Councils.
This can’t be true, pope Damascus died in 384, some 20 years before Jerome completed the Hebrew to Latin translation, so Damascus had no idea that Jerome would leave the apocrypha out of the OT. He certainly couldn’t have overridden Jerome since he knew nothing about the controversy that would arise around 400AD, when news was getting out, that Jerome had left the apocrypha out of his translation.
The early church knew which books the Hebrews considered inspired, so the church fathers adopted most of them right away, except for the book of Esther. They had trouble with it because it was strictly Hebrew history, and was not known for sure if it was inspired or not, and even the Hebrews had their doubts at the time, and that was one of the reasons given for the council of Jamniah.
The apocrypha books took a long time before the church began to see any merit in them, but since the church believed the Septuagint was an added bonus from God to his new church, they kept trying to find some merit in them until they eventually did. As you said, this is another whole story. Lol
JH :) Just two more to go.:)
More importantly, Jerome ACCEPTED the Pope and the Council's authority. When he made his Vulgate translation, it includes the books of the Septuagint that are not in the Hebrew Canon. So, yes, there is an argument in writing of Jerome in favor of the Hebrew Canon, against the much older Septuagint Canon (90 AD vs. 200 BC).
I found nothing in Jerome’s history to point to his ever changing his stance on the use of the apocrypha, but here’s a quote from him after he had finished his translation, and it doesn’t appear that he’s mellowed on the issue, and this is as late as 405AD, long after he finished the work on his translation..
THE PREFACE OF JEROME ON THE BOOK OF JUDITH
Among the Jews, the book of Judith is considered among the apocrypha; its warrant for affirming those [apocryphal texts] which have come into dispute is deemed less than sufficient. Moreover, since it was written in the Chaldean language, it is counted among the historical books. But since the Nicene Council is considered to have counted this book among the number of sacred Scriptures, I have acquiesced to your request (or should I say demand!): and, my other work set aside, from which I was forcibly restrained, I have given a single night's work, 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.
If Jerome has had a change of heart, why would he continue disparaging the readers of the apocrypha, and slam the Church officials as though their bullies? Here’s more…….
Letter CVII. To Laeta.
”Let her avoid all apocryphal writings, and if she is led to read such not by the truth of the doctrines which they contain but out of respect for the miracles contained in them; let her understand that they are not really written by those to whom they are ascribed, that many faulty elements have been introduced into them, and that it requires infinite discretion to look for gold in the midst of dirt. Cyprian’s writings let her have always in her hands. The letters of Athanasius and the treatises of Hilary she may go through without fear of stumbling. Let her take pleasure in the works and wits of all in whose books a due regard for the faith is not neglected. But if she reads the works of others let it be rather to judge them than to follow them.”
Jerome stated that it requires infinite discretion when looking for gold in the midst of dirt. It doesn’t sound like he’s had a change of heart here either.
but Jerome not only lost that argument, but accepted the opinion of the wider Church on the subject and made his translation of the full Septuagint Canon, and NOT the Hebrew Canon which he had EARLIER stated he preferred. He was convinced to change his mind.
Jerome translated two apocrypha books, Tobit and Judith, and no others. His Prologus Galeatus (prefaces) was his trademark, and he prefaced every book he translated, or mentioned it in another preface, and you’ll find none of them in any of the other apocryphal book.
When he made his Vulgate translation, it includes the books of the Septuagint that are not in the Hebrew Canon.
As I pointed out above, he translated only two apocrypha books under duress from his Church, and he did no others. The ones you see in the later bibles were taken from the LXX and injected into Jerome’s Bible.
Here is what he said he would do with the apocrypha.
Jerome
I once more began to study Chaldee. And, to confess the truth, to this day I can read and understand Chaldee better than I can pronounce it. I say this to show you how hard it is to master the book of Daniel, which in Hebrew contains neither the history of Susanna, nor the hymn of the three youths, nor the fables of Bel and the Dragon; because, however, they are to be found everywhere, we have formed them into an appendix, prefixing to them an obelus, and thus making an end of them, so as not to seem to the uninformed to have cut off a large portion of the volume.
He would place them in an appendix, far away from the inspired canonical books.
JH :) One more to go. :)
I won't say that it's disingenuous to cite Jerome's argument. Clearly Jerome was sincere. And this was a long time ago, few people really know the whole history, and therefore that Jerome was persuaded to abandon his position and adopt the general teaching of the Church is not generally known.
There is not one statement from Jerome that hints he had a change of heart toward the apocrypha. They were never allowed in his bible, and it was almost 200 years after he died that his bible was introduced to pope Gregory, around 582AD, and by then it no longer resembled the bible Jerome had written.
They had corrupted the pure translation he had strived so very hard for, by cramming eighteen apocrypha books in with the inspired canonical books. He’d have rolled over in his grave if he had known it.
We should point out that the original King James Translation of 1611 included the deuterocanonical books (the so-called "apocraypha") and it was only later that they were excluded, as the English Church itself became persuaded by the arguments of the Lutherans and others in favor of the Hebrew Canon.
They had become convinced the apocrypha should not be placed among the canonical books because of Jerome’s prefaces that cried out to your people for over 900 years.
A large percentage of your Church never accepted them, and many of the early fathers rejected them also.
the KJV originally included the apocrypha since the Latin Vulgate had them, but they eventually came out with a second edition that had removed them, and they became so popular that request for the ones with the apocrypha dropped off to nothing.
Printing was a business, and you know about supply and demand. :)
The best argument for the Septuagint Canon of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches is that it is almost 300 years older than the Hebrew Canon, it was the only Biblical compendium in existence in Jesus' day (so when Jesus refers to the Scriptures, or the Apostles do, they are referring to the Septuagint, the only Bible as such then in existence), and the Jews chose to get rid of the Septuagint Canon in favor of the Hebrew Canon (later the Masoretic Text) because there are elements in the deuterocanonical books that rather strongly favor the Christian argument over the Jewish opposition. The Jews at Jamnia chose the expedient of simply eliminating those books from their Bible so that the Christians would no longer be able to rely upon them in arguing for conversion from Jews.
Whew, and I thought I had a problem with making my sentences too long. :)
As far as the Hebrew manuscripts or scrolls being more pure from error in 300BC then they were in 2 or 300 AD, pure is a relevant term when it comes to different faiths. We all read with our own predigest, but Jerome did say he found a few while working with them.
I’ll agree that the Septuagint helped keep the Hebrew copyist more honest. However Jesus never quoted from an apocrypha book one time, so it’s doubtful they were in the Septuagint of that day.
Jesus was a Hebrew, and He read and taught from the Hebrew scrolls in the synagogue, so if the Temple and the synagogue didn’t use them, why would Jesus or his disciples since they followed the traditions of the Jews?
The story of the council at Jamnia, and the Jews organizing their first canon is unsubstantiated, and they claim it never happened. It wasn’t until around 600AD that they came out with a canon listing of their books in the Masoretic text.
Jesus' and John's and James' and Peter's Bible...the ONLY Bible at the time...was the Septuagint of circa 200 BC. Catholics and the Orthodox have always used that Canon. The Jews adopted their own, new and abridged Canon in 90 AD.
I would still like to see proof of that, it could very well be just a story. But if it’s true, what would be wrong with the Jews being pressured to finally make a canon, since there had never been a need for it prior to all the claims now being made by the Christian church.
Do you believe they had the apocrypha books in their collection of literature, but threw them all away because the Christians were now using them to………………….what? If the Jews had wanted them, of felt they were inspired, why wouldn’t they have kept them for themselves? It seems obvious they meant nothing to them, just as Jerome felt.
The Protestants later adopted the Hebrew Canon, and not the Septuagint Canon, for their own reasons, part of which was an understandable historical misunderstanding that the Hebrew Canon was actually older than the Septuagint Canon of the Catholics, but that turns out to have been a misconception.
If God gave the Jews charge over His oracles as Paul wrote in Romans 3:1-2, why wouldn’t it be wise to assume they had it right?
If God ever ask me why I chose to follow the Hebrew scriptures, rather then some that had gone from Hebrew to Greek, then to Latin, then to English, I think I already know what my answer will be. :)
Not much point in arguing about it, really. It's unfair to cite to Jerome to argue for the Hebrew Canon, since he was himself persuaded to change his mind and his Vulgate is based on the Septuagint Canon.
I have never been a Catholic, and I knew nothing about Catholicism until around three years ago, and like you I had come to the conclusion that the Catholic Bible was taken from the Septuagint Greek as you seem to believe,
That single question started me on a six-month study of Jerome, and the origin of the Latin Vulgate Bible. I had believed as you, that since the Catholics made such a roar over the apocrypha books, it must be because they were in the Septuagint, and so the Septuagint must be where their Bible came from.
I was wrong, just as you and all Catholics are wrong who think that the apocryphal books were included in Jerome’s Bible that he finished in 404AD. Think about it a moment. After Jerome finished his Translation of the OT, that was when these two Church bishops came knocking at his door, demanding he at least translate Tobit, and Judith, before they would leave.
We know he did a quickie job on the two books and, and he placed his famous prefaces on each of them, and you can’t find another apocryphal book in the Latin Vulgate that has his preface attached to them. The question is, where did the Church find these other apocrypha books that Jerome had refused to translate or put in his bible?
They took them out of the old Latin vulgate that men like Origen, or Theodotius, or Eusebius had translated much earlier from the LXX, and since their prefaces were generic, they used them since they looked like Jerome’s at first glance.
The Hebrew text was no longer pure, it was corrupted with books that were not divinely inspired by God through his prophets, but now included writings by men no one had ever heard of.
That was the first big mistake the church made, when they began insisting on these books being placed among the canonical, and they started on the way to becoming the Church of Bishops, and a political power that Jesus had warned his disciples about. Matthew 20:25-26, and Mark 10:42.
To sum up. Jerome’s attitude on the apocryphal writings had never wavered since he began his work in 390AD. Since he had completed all his translations, and his Bible had been sent out to friends and others, it’s clear his attitude remained the same, even when he acquiesced to translate two books, and his attitude had not changed even then.
Now even if someone found something that suggested he had later had a change of heart, what possible effect would it have in the translation he had already completed?
JH :)