The Maturing Opinion of Jerome

I’m not following you. How on earth am I saying they were wrong in their first selection? First selection of what? What did they change their mind on?

Quite to the contrary:

The term "apocrypha" had been used throughout the first 1,500 years to describe a large selection of literature, but nowhere did the Council use it to refer to the deuterocanonicals. This is because they rejected the Jews' labeling of the deuterocanonicals as apocrypha. What Catholics called apocrypha, apart from Jerome's comments on the Jews' judgment, consist of a series of books that no-one currently regards to be canonical, books such as that of Enoch, Jubilees (well, almost no-one, the Apocalypse of Moses, etc.

Does this sound like "punting" to you?

The sacred and holy, ecumenical, and general Synod of Trent,--lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, the Same three legates of the Apostolic Sec presiding therein,--keeping this [Page 18] always in view, that, errors being removed, the purity itself of the Gospel be preserved in the Church; which (Gospel), before promised through the prophets in the holy Scriptures, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, first promulgated with His own mouth, and then commanded to be preached by His Apostles to every creature, as the fountain of all, both saving truth, and moral discipline; and seeing clearly that this truth and discipline are contained in the written books, and the unwritten traditions which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ himself, or from the Apostles themselves, the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down even unto us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand; (the Synod) following the examples of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates with an equal affection of piety, and reverence, all the books both of the Old and of the New Testament--seeing that one God is the author of both --as also the said traditions, as well those appertaining to faith as to morals, as having been dictated, either by Christ's own word of mouth, or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic Church by a continuous succession. And it has thought it meet that a list of the sacred books be inserted in this decree, lest a doubt may arise in any one's mind, which are the books that are received by this Synod. They are as set down here below: of the Old Testament: the five books of Moses, to wit, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Josue, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon [Chronicles], the first book of Esdras, and the second which is entitled Nehemias; Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidical Psalter, consisting of a hundred and fifty psalms; the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch; Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, to wit, Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggaeus, Zacharias, Malachias; two books of the Machabees, the first and the second. Of the New Testament: the four Gospels, according [Page 19] to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the Acts of the Apostles written by Luke the Evangelist; fourteen epistles of Paul the apostle, (one) to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, (one) to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, (one) to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two of Peter the apostle, three of John the apostle, one of the apostle James, one of Jude the apostle, and the Apocalypse of John the apostle. But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema. Let all, therefore, understand, in what order, and in what manner, the said Synod, after having laid the foundation of the Confession of faith, will proceed, and what testimonies and authorities it will mainly use in confirming dogmas, and in restoring morals in the Church. Your problem might be your source, which repeats the absurd and damnable lie that Jerome rejected the books of Tobit and Judith, when, in fact, in his preface, states precisely the opposite.

My source was a Catholic historian.

Further, this is NOT a ringing endorsement of Judith and Tobit:

“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...”

Or this:

“For you demand that I bring a book written in Chaldean words into Latin writing, indeed the book of Tobias, which the Hebrews exclude from the catalogue of Divine Scriptures, being mindful of those things which they have titled Hagiographa. I have done enough for your desire, yet not by my study. For the studies of the Hebrews rebuke us and find fault with us, to translate this for the ears of Latins contrary to their canon. But it is better to be judging the opinion of the Pharisees to displease and to be subject to the commands of bishops. I have persisted as I have been able, and because the language of the Chaldeans is close to Hebrew speech, finding a speaker very skilled in both languages, I took to the work of one day, and whatever he expressed to me in Hebrew words, this, with a summoned scribe, I have set forth in Latin words.”

He also wrote this:

“This prologue to the Scriptures may be appropriate as a helmeted introduction to all the books which we turn from Hebrew into Latin, so we may be able to know whatever is outside of these is set aside among the apocrypha. Therefore, Wisdom, which is commonly ascribed to Solomon, and the book of Jesus son of Sirach, and Judith and Tobias, and The Shepherd are not in the canon. I have found the First Book of the Maccabees (is) Hebrew, the Second is Greek, which may also be proven by their styles. (Prologue to Kings)

No one ought to be bothered by the fact that my edition consists of only one book, nor ought anyone take delight in the dreams found in the apocryphal third and fourth books. For among the Hebrews the texts of Ezra and Nehemiah comprise a single book, and those texts which are not used by them and are not concerned with the twenty-four elders ought to be rejected outright. (Prologue to Ezra)

Therefore, just as the Church also reads the books of Judith, Tobias, and the Maccabees, but does not receive them among the the canonical Scriptures, so also one may read these two scrolls [Sirach and the Wisdom of Solomon] for the strengthening of the people, (but) not for confirming the authority of ecclesiastical dogmas. (Prologue to the Writings of Solomon)

And remember - there WAS NO LIST of canonical books that came out of the Nicene Council. Hmmmmm....

For everyone....sorry.

“Now, we can understand St. Jerome’s anger he expresses when he uses terms like “fool” and “slanderer”! Whatever opinions St. Jerome might have developed on his own, he has submitted his own opinion to that of the Church, which has made its own opinion the subject of an ecumenical council!”

This is more fantastical thinking than it is an actual demonstration of Jerome “evolving” to the modern Roman Catholic position, since it assumes that Jerome’s conforming to the Bishops meant he conformed to Trent which had yet to occur for about another thousand years, rather than to the unanimous position that these books were to be read, and were beneficial for instruction in morality, though still not to be brought forward as a confirmation of Christian doctrine, just as Cardinal Catejan concludes, both a contemporary of Luther and an enemy.

“Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St. Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecciesiasticus, as is plain from the Protogus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the Bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the Bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage.” (Cardinal Cajetan, “Commentary on all the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament,” cited by William Whitaker in “A Disputation on Holy Scripture,” Cambridge: Parker Society (1849), p. 424)

Official prefaces to Latin translations of the scripture making the same distinction:

“At the dawn of the Reformation the great Romanist scholars remained faithful to the judgment of the Canon which Jerome had followed in his translation. And Cardinal Ximenes in the preface to his magnificent Polyglott Biblia Complutensia-the lasting monument of the University which he founded at Complutum or Alcala, and the great glory of the Spanish press-separates the Apocrypha from the Canonical books. The books, he writes, which are without the Canon, which the Church receives rather for the edification of the people than for the establishment of doctrine, are given only in Greek, but with a double translation.” ( B.F. Westcott, A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament (Cambridge: MacMillan, 1889), pp. 470-471.)

And still more ancient sources:

John of Damascus -

“Observe, further, that there are two and twenty books of the Old Testament, one for each letter of the Hebrew tongue. For there are twenty-two letters of which five are double, and so they come to be twenty-seven...And thus the number of the books in this way is twenty-two, but is found to be twenty-seven because of the double character of five. For Ruth is joined on to Judges, and the Hebrews count them one book: the first and second books of Kings are counted one: and so are the third and fourth books of Kings: and also the frirst and second of Paraleipomena: and the first and second of Esdra. In this way, then, the books are collected together in four Pentateuchs and two others remain over, to form thus the canonical books. Five of them are of the Law, viz. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. This which is the code of the Law, constitutes the first Pentateuch. Then comes another Pentateuch, the so-called Grapheia, or as they are called by some, the Hagiographa, which are the following: Jesus the Son of Nave, Judges along with Ruth, first and second Kings, which are one book, third and fourth Kings, which are one book, and the two books of the Paraleipomena which are one book. This is the second Pentateuch. The third Pentateuch is the books in verse, viz. Job, Psalms, Proverbs of Solomon, Ecclesiastes of Solomon and the Song of Songs of Solomon. The fourth Pentateuch is the Prophetical books, viz the twelve prophets constituting one book, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel. Then come the two books of Esdra made into one, and Esther. There are also the Panaretus, that is the Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Jesus, which was published in Hebrew by the father of Sirach, and afterwards translated into Greek by his grandson, Jesus, the son of Sirach. These are virtuous and noble, but are not counted nor were they placed in the ark” (Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Nicene and Post-NiceneFathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955), Series Two, Volume IX, John of Damascus, Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Chapter XVII).

Pope Gregory the Great - “With reference to which particular we are not acting irregularly, if from the books, though not Canonical, yet brought out for the edification of the Church, we bring forward testimony. Thus Eleazar in the battle smote and brought down an elephant, but fell under the very beast that he killed” (1 Macc. 6.46). (Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church, (Oxford: Parker, 1845), Gregory the Great, Morals on the Book of Job, Volume II, Parts III and IV, Book XIX.34, p.424.)

Alcuin (9th Century) Writing against Elipantus, Bishop of Toledo, who made reference to Ecclesiasticus in defending a doctrine he rebuked him saying:

‘That the prophets of God failed him, whereof he had never a one to bring for the defense of his error; and then, that the book of the Son of Sirach, which he had produced, was, both by Jerome’s and Isidore’s undoubted testimonies, since it was apocryphal, and therefore a dubious scripture, having not been written in the time of the Prophets, but in the time of the priests only, under Simon and Ptolmey.’

Athanasius on the apocrypha:

“But for the sake of greater exactness I add this also, writing under obligation, as it were. There are other books besides these, indeed not received as canonical but having been appointed by our fathers to be read to those just approaching and wishing to be instructed in the word of godliness: Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former [standard new and old testament canon], my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being merely read.” (Thirty-Ninth Festal Epistle, A.D. 367.)

Rufinus on the Apocrypha:

“But it should be known that there are also other books which our fathers call not ‘Canonical’ but ‘Ecclesiastical:’ that is to say, Wisdom, called the Wisdom of Solomon, and another Wisdom, called the Wisdom of the Son of Syrach, which last-mentioned the Latins called by the general title Ecclesiasticus, designating not the author of the book, but the character of the writing. To the same class belong the Book of Tobit, and the Book of Judith, and the Books of the Maccabees. In the New Testament the little book which is called the Book of the Pastor of Hermas (and that) which is called the Two Ways, or the Judgment of Peter; all of which they would have read in the Churches, but not appealed to for the confirmation of doctrine. The other writings they have named ‘Apocrypha.’ These they would not have read in the Churches. These are the traditions which the Fathers have handed down to us, which, as I said, I have thought it opportune to set forth in this place, for the instruction of those who are being taught the first elements of the Church and of the Faith, that they may know from what fountains of the Word of God their draughts must be taken” (Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953), Rufinus, Commentary on the Apostles’ Creed 36, p. 557-558.).

Jerome on the Apocrypha

“These instances have been just touched upon by me (the limits of a letter forbid a more discursive treatment of them) to convince you that in the holy scriptures you can make no progress unless you have a guide to shew you the way...Genesis ... Exodus ... Leviticus ... Numbers ... Deuteronomy ... Job ... Jesus the son of Nave ... Judges ... Ruth ... Samuel ... The third and fourth books of Kings ... The twelve prophets whose writings are compressed within the narrow limits of a single volume: Hosea ... Joel ... Amos ... Obadiah ... Jonah ... Micah ... Nahum ... Habakkuk ... Zephaniah ... Haggai ... Zechariah ... Malachi ... Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel ... Jeremiah also goes four times through the alphabet in different metres (Lamentations)... David...sings of Christ to his lyre; and on a psaltry with ten strings (Psalms) ... Solomon, a lover of peace and of the Lord, corrects morals, teaches nature (Proverbs and Ecclesiastes), unites Christ and the church, and sings a sweet marriage song to celebrate that holy bridal (Song of Songs) ... Esther ... Ezra and Nehemiah.

You see how, carried away by my love of the scriptures, I have exceeded the limits of a letter...The New Testament I will briefly deal with. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John ... The apostle Paul writes to seven churches (for the eighth epistle - that to the Hebrews - is not generally counted in with the others) ... The Acts of the Apostles ... The apostles James, Peter, John and Jude have published seven epistles ... The apocalypse of John ...I beg of you, my dear brother, to live among these books, to meditate upon them, to know nothing else, to seek nothing else (Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953, Volume VI, St. Jerome, Letter LIII.6-10).

As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it also read these two volumes (Wisdom of Solomon and Eccesiasticus) for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church...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...(Ibid., Volume VI, Jerome, Prefaces to Jerome’s Works, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs; Daniel, pp. 492-493).

Let her treasures be not silks or gems but manuscripts of the holy scriptures...Let her begin by learning the psalter, and then let her gather rules of life out of the proverbs of Solomon...Let her follow the example set in Job of virtue and patience. Then let her pass on to the gospels...the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles...let her commit to memory the prophets, the heptateuch, the books of Kings and of Chronicles, the rolls also of Ezra and Esther. When she has done all these she may safely read the Song of Songs...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 (Ibid., Letter CVII.12).

What the Savior declares was written down was certainly written down. Where is it written down? The Septuagint does not have it, and the Church does not recognize the Apocrypha. Therefore we must go back to the book of the Hebrews, which is the source of the statements quoted by the Lord, as well as the examples cited by the disciples...But he who brings charges against me for relating the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susanna, the Song of the Three Children, and the story of Bel and the Dragon, which are not found in the Hebrew volume, proves that he is just a foolish sycophant...The apostolic men use the Hebrew Scripture. It is clear that the apostles themselves and the evangelists did likewise. The Lord and Savior, whenever He refers to ancient Scripture, quotes examples from the Hebrew volumes...We do not say this because we wish to rebuke the Septuagint translators, but because the authority of the apostles and of Christ is greater...”(The Fathers of the Church (Washington: Catholic University, 1965), Volume 53, Saint Jerome, Against Rufinus, Book II.27, 33, pp. 151, 158-160).

“Then I got ... once again... into a quarrel in yet another thread about the Catholic church “adding” the apocrypha to the canon and I came across a simple, but powerful discovery:”

What’s funny about this is that the thread you are talking about was literally a thread started by a Catholic setup to accuse Protestants of removing books from the Bible.

>> since it assumes that Jerome’s conforming to the Bishops meant he conformed to Trent which had yet to occur for about another thousand years, <<

LOL! Your ability to think in rigidly circular logic is amazing! The ecumenical council that Jerome explicitly stated he was obeying was the NICENE council, just a few years before his own birth.

Also: John of Damascus is very plainly describing the canon of the Hebrews; he regularly cites as scripture from the so-called “apocrypha.”

As does Gregory the Great, who explicitly cites as Holy Scripture in his later publication of that very same work, Sirach 10:25, Sirach 3:22, Wisdom 12:6, Sirach 10:15, Wisdom 2:24, Wisdom 12:18, Sirach 7:40, Wisdom 11:24, Wisdom 12:18 again, Sirach 5:4, Wisdom 1:11, Tobit 4:17, Sirach 34:20, Sirach 7:14, Sirach 29:15, Wisdom 9:15, Sirach 32:24. In many of these cases, he is plainly establishing moral doctrine. So if you hold that he rejects 1 Maccabees, then you must hold that he still retains Sirach, Wisdom and Tobit, and purposely and directly preaches against Sola Scriptura. But with historical context, we find that he was writing from Constantinople, where there had been a crisis over which of the four Books of the Maccabees to include in the canon, where his meaning was, “Even if you reject this as canon, you must still accept the testimony it provides.”

Athanasius: Very plainly insists that books outside the Hebrew canon be used to instruct new converts in moral doctrine.

Cajetan was convinced by the assertions of Luther, which we now know to have been historically wrong. Funny how you ignore every other Catholic bishop of his time who ascented to Trent, and treat the one singled out by Trent as heretical as if he were representative.

Oh, and for the record: Jerome was misled by Jews, but assented to the Catholic church out of faith in the institution. He believed that the Septuagint was a terrible translation because he had been led to believe that the Masoretic text was the only Hebrew version ever published. Scholars now see where the NT uses the LXX as its source, and we had multitudes of Hebrew versions which contradict the assertions made by the Jews to Jerome. So even if you appeal to him merely as a scripture scholar, and discredit the fact that he assented to the Catholic faith, you have to also recognize that although it was to no fault of his scholarship, his work is thoroughly historically discredited on that particular matter.

http://theorthodoxlife.wordpress.com/2012/03/03/septuagint-vs-masoretic-text/

I can’t help but to notice that you are totally making things up as you go along. For example, you claim that Cajetan “was convinced by the assertions of Luther.” Well, that’s just incredibly stupid, and you don’t even back it up with anything. You’re talking about THIS Cajetan who sports THIS biography:

“Dominican cardinal, philosopher, theologian, and exegete; born 20 February, 1469 at Gaeta, Italy; died 9 August, 1534 at Rome…In 1501 he was made procurator general of his order and appointed to the chairs of philosophy and exegesis at the Sapienza. On the death of the master general, John Clérée, 1507, Cajetan was named vicar-general of the order, and the next year he was elected to the generalship. With foresight and ability, he devoted his energies to the promotion of religious discipline, emphasizing the study of sacred science as the chief means of attaining the end of the order…. About the fourth year of his generalship, Cajetan rendered important service to the Holy See by appearing before the Pseudo-Council of Pisa (1511), where he denounced the disobedience of the participating cardinals and bishops and overwhelmed them with his arguments. This was the occasion of his defence of the power and monarchical supremacy of the pope…On 1 July, 1517, Cajetan was created cardinal by Pope Leo X…He was later made Bishop of Gaeta…In theology Cajetan is justly ranked as one of the foremost defenders and exponents of the Thomistic school…To Clement VII he was the “lamp of the Church”, and everywhere in his career, as the theological light of Italy, he was heard with respect and pleasure by cardinals, universities, the clergy, nobility, and people.” (Catholic Encyclopedia, 16 Volumes (New York: Encyclopedia Press, 1913). See also New Advent at www.newadvent.org.)

And you want me to believe that the foundation of his opinion was on an ASSERTION by Luther? How stupid do you think Cajetan has to be, and the Roman Catholic church has to be, to be tricked by a mere ASSERTION?

Same thing on John of Damascus. You just assert that he was talking about someone elses canon, and not his own, even though he explicitly is speaking of our canon. And you don’t even offer anything except your own assertion. Is this how Romans debate when they are osing? They just throw whatever **** at the wall, hoping something will stick for those less educated on the matter?

Athanasius you don’t seem capable of even understanding, and this is the second time you’ve done that:

“Athanasius: Very plainly insists that books outside the Hebrew canon be used to instruct new converts in moral doctrine.”

It’s the complete opposite. Athanasius plainly states that the standard Old and New Testament are both to be read and to be brought forward for the confirmation of doctrine, while the questionable books were STILL to be read, though not brought forward for the confirmation of doctrine. This is an important distinction that destroys your modern RCC views.

Your comment, basically, shows me that you either didn’t read Athanasius or are incapable of understanding him.

On your comments about Pope Gregory quoting the apocrypha as ‘scripture’. What’s your point? Well, of course they did, as these books were considered to be “called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the Bible for that purpose.” But they were not considered canonical in another sense, as “these books (and any other like books in the canon of the Bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith.” So it makes absolutely no difference if they called these books “scripture,” or made use of them, since this is part of my whole argument in the first place, since their distinction was such that these were worthwhile books, but simply were not used for the purpose of creating or defending doctrine. All your doing is just repeating what I myself have already discussed, at least in that other thread where we already had this discussion.

This is a position I am completely okay with, and I think there is MUCH to be gained by reading ancient books, including many that Rome doesn’t even acknowledge anymore. For example, the Didache has MANY useful quotations and insights, even though you have put it out of the canon. Though, of course, I understand, with all these ancient Christians, that these books are not equal to the undisputed canon of the Christian church, they have many errors, and therefore can never be brought forward for any purpose of doctrine. But so far as edification goes, Judith, for example, is a wonderful story! Tobit, if you can get by the Angel teaching witchcraft (the roasting of fish guts allegedly to ward off demons), is quite interesting.

“Oh, and for the record: Jerome was misled by Jews, but assented to the Catholic church out of faith in the institution. He believed that the Septuagint was a terrible translation because he had been led to believe that the Masoretic text was the only Hebrew version ever published. Scholars now see where the NT uses the LXX as its source, and we had multitudes of Hebrew versions which contradict the assertions made by the Jews to Jerome. So even if you appeal to him merely as a scripture scholar, and discredit the fact that he assented to the Catholic faith, you have to also recognize that although it was to no fault of his scholarship, his work is thoroughly historically discredited on that particular matter.

http://theorthodoxlife.wordpress.com/2012/03/03/septuagint-vs-masoretic-text/";

Looking at the link, it doesn’t actually support any of your assertions. Also, it is quite irrelevant, as I mentioned in the other thread, there is no evidence that the LXX possessed the apocrypha during the time of Christ or before that. All we actually know is that the Books of Moses were translated, and are called the LXX, but we do not even know when the rest of the Old Testament made its way into the Greek, or even who translated it, or how many times it has been translated. The only copies of the LXX we have today are Christian copies, which actually contain a great number of books that the early Christians thought were useful to read, which Rome rejects. Third, the Masoretic text dates to the 7th to 10th centuries, though it is highly accurate (though not exactly the same) as copies found among the dead sea scrolls. So Jerome couldn’t have possibly have known anything about something that had yet to even exist. Fourth, the Masoretic text, even though there are minor differences with the LXX in some points as your quote mentions, is still not as good a translation as the Masoretc, as it is the LXX which actually removes important prophecies regarding the Messiah.

For example,

Isaiah 9:6 (Septuagint)
“For a child is born to us, and a son is given to us, whose government is upon his shoulder: and his name is called the Messenger of great counsel: for I will bring peace upon the princes, and health to him. 7 His government shall be great, and of his peace there is no end: it shall be upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to establish it, and to support it with judgment and with righteousness, from henceforth and forever. The seal of the Lord of hosts shall perform this.”

This removes the important prophecy of Christ’s deity from the Old Testament. How Jerome translates it from the Hebrew into the Latin:

Isa 9:6 parvulus enim natus est nobis filius datus est nobis et factus est principatus super umerum eius et vocabitur nomen eius Admirabilis consiliarius Deus fortis Pater futuri saeculi Princeps pacis

The Mighty God is reentered into the text, where it belongs.

And the KJV:

Isa 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

How the Targum by Jonathan Ben Uzziel renders it in his paraphrase, 30 years before the time of Christ:

“The prophet said to the house of David, For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given, and He has taken the law upon Himself to keep it. His name is called from eternity. Wonderful, The Mighty God, who liveth to eternity, The Messiah, whose peace shall be great upon us in His days.” (The Chaldee paraphrase on the prophet Isaiah [by Jonathan b. Uziel] tr. by C.W.H. Pauli)

Obviously, the Masoretic is the reading that is most consistent, even though the Greek version the Apostles used had some differences.

John Damascene cites as scripture Wisdom 3:1 (St. John of Damascus, An Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book IV, Chapter XV). And Baruch 3:37, and Tobit 3:4 (even though he COULD have merely cited John 1:14 to make the same point). Again, he cites Barcuh 3:37 in Book IV, Chapter XVII. Baruch 3:38 in Book IV, Chapter VIII. And 2 Macc 9:5 in his summation.

As for Cardinal Cajetan, you should read what your source (the Catholic Encyclopedia) relates Popes saying about King Henry VIII... before he went apostate. (ironically, Cajetan drafted the condemnation of Henry VIII.) Cajetan Resolutely smashed Luther over many issues, but on the one issue of the canon, he was convinced by Luther. I can’t understand how any reasonable person could find the sentence “was convinced by the assertions of Luther” stupid. Cajetan cited Luther’s arguments in regard to Jerome verbatim, explicitly recognizing he was taking a position midway between Luther’s and certain of Luther’s opponents. His position was then found heretical and anathematized by the Council of Trent.

Notice how your post is essentially just a repetition of what you said before, with the same problems you had with the previous one, without replying to anything I actually said, or providing any real support for the silly things you want us to believe.

I’m going to have to stick with Cajetan, Latin prefaces of the scripture, the consensus of the Fathers and their view of the apocrypha, over some random guy on CF who thinks he can fool people into believing something contrary to history.

Taking your points in reverse order:

4. Yes, there are a couple places where the NT relies on a translation more similar to the MT than the LXX. But 85% of the time, the LXX is the closer one.

3. Yes, the MT was from the 7th to 9th centuries, but it is so similar to much older texts that translators refer to the entire tradition of which it is the culmination of as the MT. “Mesorah” refers to the transmission of a tradition far older than the MT.

2. There is no evidence that any book was added to the Septuagint (bearing in mind that the translation took place over many decades; the original work of the 72 was only the Books of the Law.) But the Septuagint was universally accepted from sects of Christianity which lost contact with Rome long before the Council of Nicea. So you’re arguing that several Christian groups independently added books to the Greek Bible, making no mention of the addition, and with no historical record of their act. Some of these non-Catholic groups may add books to the canon, or have “fuzzy canons,” but they all include the full canon of the Septuagint.

And here’s a key point: There was a marked religious difference already established by the time of Jesus between the Hellenic Jews and the non-Hellenic Jews. Whereas the Palestinian Jews were divided among the Saducees and the Samaritans (who regarded only the 5 Books of the Law as divinely inspired), the Pharisees (who regarded the Prophets — which includes the Books of David, such as the Psalms, but not Daniel — as inspired, but not the Khetuvim), and the Essenes, who included a much larger canon. Only after Christ did the Jews solidify their canon; it makes little sense to suppose that sometime AFTER this point, somehow the Hellenists added books to the canon.

“Jesus said to them again, ‘Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.’ And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.’ “

“And here’s a key point: There was a marked religious difference already established by the time of Jesus between the Hellenic Jews and the non-Hellenic Jews. Whereas the Palestinian Jews were divided among the Saducees and the Samaritans (who regarded only the 5 Books of the Law as divinely inspired), the Pharisees (who regarded the Prophets — which includes the Books of David, such as the Psalms, but not Daniel — as inspired, but not the Khetuvim), and the Essenes, who included a much larger canon. Only after Christ did the Jews solidify their canon; it makes little sense to suppose that sometime AFTER this point, somehow the Hellenists added books to the canon.”

This is an old claim based on the alleged council of Jamnia, to which there is no evidence.

“The Council of Jamnia or Council of Yavne is a hypothetical late 1st-century council at which the canon of the Hebrew Bible was alleged to have been finalized. First proposed by Heinrich Graetz in 1871, this theory was popular for much of the twentieth century. It was increasingly questioned from the 1960s onward, and is no longer considered plausible.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Jamnia

It’s actually the same exact claim made on the other thread on this same matter, so we’re literally going through all these same assumptions one by one again.

“But the Septuagint was universally accepted from sects of Christianity which lost contact with Rome long before the Council of Nicea. So you’re arguing that several Christian groups independently added books to the Greek Bible, making no mention of the addition, and with no historical record of their act. “

First of all, this is complete nonsense, every bit of it. Secondly, what you’re trying to claim is that no one knew about these “extra” books that were being added to Bibles, because, even though you just got done admitting that there is no evidence for your position (that the LXX always contained the translated apocrypha with it), you go on to make the reverse claim, that there was no evidence that the LXX always contained these extra books, such as the Shepard of Hermes which is included in the Codex Sinaiticus, or Maccabees up to the 4th book.

I don’t think you have any clue what it is you are writing about here, to be honest. Every comment you make literally feels to me like creative fiction.

How can you even talk about there being no “historical record,” when in the other thread, you got done lamenting to me about Athanasius including the Shepard of Hermes and the Didache as part of the apocrypha, along with Tobit, Judith etc? If anything, the Shepard has a better history than the rest of your apocrypha, because Irenaeus was even aware of who the author was, when it was made, and where it was made.

Do you think you can overwhelm me with nonsensical posts, so that I will suddenly forget the facts and buy your flash fiction?

“It is a pity to once again see Catholics attacking Protestants.”

It’s baffling. There was no attack on protestants, and yet you say there was.

The early church fathers agreed that certain books were considered infallible and inerrant. While some held in high regards the writings in the Apocrypha, it was their consensus that writings didn’t measure up to the same standards as what was considered to be the scriptures. That is how the early Bible was put together.

One thousand years later, the Council of Trent decided certain books of the Apocrypha should be included. That is the difference between the Protestants and Catholic versions of the Bible.

I’m not referencing the Council of Jamnia. That’s a guess at how the varying groups of Jews came into accord on scripture, but the fact that they had different canons is obvious from the scriptures. To the Sadducees and the Samaritans, Jesus referenced only the Law. To the Pharisees, he referenced the Law and the Prophets. To his own, he also cited the “writings,” which have become known among the Jews as the Khetuvim. The varying, biblically-attested beliefs of these groups corresponds to what is lacking in each canon: Only the Pharisees acknowledge the Resurrection, because there is no mention of it in the Law. The Samaritans refuse to acknowledge even the Temple, because they reject even books such as Samuel-Kings, Ezra-Nehemiah, Judges, etc!

Now, the Jews promulgated a legend that the Hebrew bible existed intact throughout the history of Israel, only growing, that not a jot or tittle had ever been added since the days of Moses, who wrote of his own death in Deuteronomy through prophecy. They insisted for millennia that the MT (and, again, I am including the vowel-free texts which predated it) was the only translation which had ever existed among the Jews. This led Jerome (and after him, Cajetan) to believe that the Septuagint was a poor translation of Hebrew, never imagining that it was a most excellent translation of previous Hebrew bible versions. We now have solid physical evidence that this legend is very, very wrong. (Also, it must be noted that the Septuagint refers to a family of varied translations.)

ALSO: Far from denying it, I will plainly acknowledge (and have done so) that certain groups also retain additional books such as 3 Maccabees, Greek Esra, etc. In fact, in the other thread, I discussed how the Council of Trent wrestled with the fact that some churches accepted these works as part of the canon. But they don’t mysteriously work their way into the canon of all churches across Christendom, in communication with Rome/Nicea/Alexandria/Jerusalem or not, the way the other books do.

(Incidentally, the Shepherd of Hermes would be in the New Testament, had it been universally accepted as canonical.)

One last point:

The Church fathers never condemned the Didache, 3 or 4 Maccabees, Greek Esra, etc. To this day, there is no heresy found within them by the Catholic church, and they contain further support for Catholic doctrines. Neither does the church condemn or refuse to share communion with the churches which do hold them to be canonical (although they do ask Catholics to respect the discipline of those churches, which do not offer communion to Catholics). The sole reason that they were excluded from Western/Catholic bibles was because they had not been *universally* accepted as scriptural. All of which makes the notion that the Catholic church suddenly added seven books all the more ridiculous.

“It’s baffling. There was no attack on protestants, and yet you say there was.”

Guess we will just have to disagree:

“And this, then, is the hope Catholics have for the salvation of Protestants: that they have had no free choice to follow the true Church which Jesus, himself, founded. They have been led astray by “fools and slanderers,” who have concealed the truth from them. Those “Protestants” who knew the truth in the time of Martin Luther were anathematized by the Council of Trent, because there was no way they could possibly believe the assertion that the Church had just added such books to the canon. But today’s Protestants adamantly believe this assertion for no-one has told them otherwise. Hence, their ignorance is “invinceable.””

“Guess we will just have to disagree”

Really? You see that as an attack?

Astounding.