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. :)
Re: part two.
Ok, here you really get into Jerome, and I learned quite a bit of the details of history.
As to my comments about Pope Damascus selecting the Canon to be translated, I have read that elsewhere in a couple of places. If what you've written is correct about the disparity in dates between Damascus' selection of the Canon and Jerome's translation, then it would appear that it was successors of Damascus who pressed his selection of Canon on an unwilling Jerome.
I will pass over most of your comments on Jerome and accept that you are presenting his words and a reasonably accurate history here. My comment would be to look at the bigger picture. I have seen Jerome strongly cited to before by Protestants, and I think I understand why now. Here was an ancient Church Father from the Patristic Period whose written arguments about the biblical Canon corresponded to later Protestant arguments. Therefore he's a natural. I doubt that Protestants would take Jerome up on the rest of his theology, thoughts on all of the sacraments, or Mary, for example, but he is a very useful figure for arguing a certain Biblical position.
Now, as to the deuterocanonical, "apocryphal" books all being written in "Chaldee", Jerome is apparently using either Aramaic our outright Chaldean texts. Many of the deuterocanonica may have been originally written in Greek. However, recent archaelogical discoveries, including the Nag Hammuradi (sp.?) finds, have included ancient texts of the deuterocanonica written in Hebrew.
Now, we should remember that there is a considerable difference of degree of intensity about this subject from our two positions. You are a devoted Protestant, for whom the Bible is the central pillar of the religion. Therefore, what books are seen as inspired and what books are not is primordial. If the Catholics are right, or if the Orthodox are right, then up to 18 full books of the inspired Word of God has been lopped off due to human tradition, and the full Word of God has been partly supressed. On the other hand, if the Catholics and Orthodox are wrong, and the Jews were right in choosing the Old Testament Canon, then the Catholics and Orthodox have lapsed into grievous error, from a Protestant perspective, because they have added to the Word of God, and added false and dangerous doctrines thereby.
On the other hand, from my Catholic point of view, it scarcely matters. The core of my faith is the Sacraments inaugurated by God. The Bible, interpreted properly, makes the importance of the Sacraments stand out in sharp relief, but Christianity is just as valid for utter illiterate peasants as for educated people in a post-printing press world...and what makes that so is the Sacraments. So, the Catholic Canon provides ample inspiration. The abridged Protestant Canon does too. Theologians can argue over what is left out in the latter, but from the sacramental perspective, it doesn't make any difference anyway, really. The Orthodox Canon is even more expansive, and provides, no doubt, even more insight if read properly with the proper supervision and explanation of ordained authorities. So, it's not that the Bible is not important, it's that it's not AS important, when you get right down to it, to me as it is to you. It is a part of my religion, a useful body of information, a compendium of God's revelation. But the Sacramental Eucharist on the altar is actually God. Obviously if one believes that, the Eucharist and the related Sacraments overwhelm the Bible and every other thing in terms of importance.
Which doesn't mean it's not worth discussing these things. It's just worthwhile to remember the disconnect, and to remember that in any sort of discussion across the lines of faith between a devout Catholic and a devout Protestant, the pillars of each other's faiths are different enough that it is exceptionally easy to become angry at each other without knowing why.