“Much has changed, but no doctrine has changed. This is why the Catholic Church still happily reads form every book in the Bible and doesn’t pit one against the other.”
No, I suppose not. You just pit every book of the Bible against your oral tradition.
“The “she” in Genesis 3:15 is not like Luther’s “allein”. St. Jerome had to make a gender distinction that does not exist in Hebrew. A modern translator who translates “he will crush your head” makes the same distinction equally arbitrarily.”
Huh? Where did you learn Hebrew?
“The Jewish canon has not been settled till Jamnia, AD 90 or so. This was AFTER the rabbis booted the Christians out of their synagogues. Call them what you will prior to that, after Jamnia they werre in no way “Church”.
The deuterocanonical books were not included in the temple archive as canonical Scripture, and this before the time of Christ. Again, read 1 & 2 Maccabees. Also, take note that Christ never quotes from them as Scripture, nor do the Apostles.
I will leave it there.
Goodnight.
Regarding Genesis 3:15, I should not have said "gender distinctions". There is no question that a reader of modern Hebrew would translate nothing but "he" for "הוא", and therefore find it grammatically coordinated with "זרעה", "her seed". The choice that would stand for the modern translator as it stood for St. Jerome would be whether to do that, or translate in the plural, "they" and "her children", which has a biblical warrant. This is the from a Jewish source (we don't have to agree with Uri Yosef's theology to agree with his knowledge of biblical Hebrew):
Examples such as the above clearly demonstrate the plural application of the singular Hebrew pronouns הוא (hu), he/they, and אתה (atah), you/pl. you, and these add credence to the correct translation of Genesis 3:15 – the one using they and the implicit [plural] you.
St. Jerome translated "ipsos", singular masculine. But the plain reading of the passage strongly suggests an error here, as the seed, all the more so "of a woman", a physical impossibility, cannot be crushing heads. The context is the predicted enmity between the snake and the woman, not the snake and some future seed. So a strong Jewish tradition existed to interpolate a feminine singular on assumption of a copyist error. Hence, and in the presence of Hebrew renderings in feminine, "ipsa" eventually found its way into the Vulgate:
When Jerome did his translation of Scripture into Latin—the translation known today as the Vulgate—he followed the Septuagint’s "he/his" reading.
You can say all you want about the deuterocanonical books, but the facts are that the Church had them as canonical as early as the cannon became settled in late 4c at the Carthage council, and they were in the Septuagint. Luther tossed them because he didn't like what is in them (and you agree with him), namely that they teach prayers for the dead.