Posted on 10/30/2013 2:07:54 PM PDT by dangus
"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 for the strengthening of the people, (but) not for confirming the authority of ecclesiastical dogmas."
St. Jerome's preface to the Books of Wisdom.
I long ago read where St. Jerome calls anyone who claims he disdains the canon of the Septuagint, "a fool or a slanderer." He says he was merely representing the opinions of the Jews. For me, that always settled the matter of St. Jerome's opinion of the canon of the Septuagint. But one thing always stuck in my craw: given the previous quote, St. Jerome seems to be blustering a little: It does seem quite reasonable to interpret that passage as meaning that St. Jerome doesn't regard them as being sacred scripture.
The passage is not the clear repudiation of their canonicity that it appears to be. In several other places, St. Jerome contradicts this interpretation directly, and we have to interpret the passage in that light:
Several Church Fathers argued against using the "apocrypha" to gain converts among the Jews. So it's also quite reasonable to suppose that St. Jerome merely meant, "don't use these books to convince anyone of the authority the ecclesiastical dogmas, (since they won't believe you). Use them merely to help those who have already converted to grow further in their faith." But still...
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:
I had always regarded the Vulgate as a single publication. I hadn't realized it was issued over several years. St. Jerome's preface to the Books of Wisdom was published years before his prefaces to the Books of Judith and Tobit. Read them:
Jerome to the Bishops in the Lord Cromatius and Heliodorus, health!
I do not cease to wonder at the constancy of your demanding. 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 decide to displease the opinions of the Pharisees 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. I will be paid the price of this work by your prayers, when, by your grace, I will have learned what you request to have been completed by me was worthy.St. Jerome's preface to the Book of Tobit.
But Bishop Cromatius and Bishop Heliodorus are only two people? OK, he calls those Jews who retain the smaller canon, "Pharisees". But apologists might still claim that Jerome's earlier prologue bears greater weight, and that he only is caving to the demands of two bishops, whereas before he was stating the opinion of the Church. But read this still later passage:
Among the Jews, the book of Judith is considered among the apocrypha; the warrant for affirming these disputed 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. 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.St. Jerome's preface to the Book of Judith.
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!
It's altogether reasonable to read these prefaces as St. Jerome "evolving" his views, rather than taking greater concern not to be misread. It's reasonable to reconcile prefaces which at least appear contradictory, in the light of a greater historical context. It's NOT reasonable to read his preface to the Books of Wisdom as indicating that the Church did not consider the "apocrypha" to be scripture, but then ignore St. Jerome's assertion that a universal council of the entire Christian world, held to define mandatory and infallible doctrine, contradicted that reading.
This is what just galls me: Every single Protestant discussion of the canon or St. Jerome's opinion of the canon excludes his prefaces to the Book of Judith and to the Book of Tobit. Every one. 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."
“19 We also have the prophetic message as something completely reliable, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. 20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things.”
Okay, now let’s look at a correct rendition:
1:19. And we have the more firm prophetical word: whereunto you do well to attend, as to a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn and the day star arise in your hearts.
1:20. Understanding this first: That no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation.
No prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation…This shows plainly that the scriptures are not to be expounded by any one’s private judgment or private spirit, because every part of the holy scriptures were written by men inspired by the Holy Ghost, and declared as such by the Church; therefore they are not to be interpreted but by the Spirit of God, which he hath left, and promised to remain with his Church to guide her in all truth to the end of the world. Some may tell us, that many of our divines interpret the scriptures: they may do so, but they do it always with a submission to the judgment of the Church, and not otherwise.
See, your translation gave, “...by the prophet’s own interpretation of things...” but that’s not what the Bible says. The Bible says, “...no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation...”
I do not believe that’s a good-faith error. I think it was deliberately mistranslated to hide from protestants that “...no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation...” with the intent of making people think that a completely uneducated 80-IQ son of God is as qualified as a scholarly 180-IQ theologian.
People here like to talk about Catholics being “arrogant,” but it is we who admit that we can profit from the intellectual work product of 2000 years of scholarship. Am I as qualified to interpret scripture as Saint Thomas Aquinas? Not bleedin’ likely, mate.
As Chesterton wrote, “There is no other case of one continuous intelligent institution that has been thinking about thinking for two thousand years. Its experience naturally covers nearly all experiences; and especially nearly all errors. The result is a map in which all the blind alleys and bad roads are clearly marked, all the ways that have been shown to be worthless by the best of all evidence: the evidence of those who have gone down them.”
Wrong, as usual.
Is (εστιν — ginetai). Rather “comes,” “springs” (Alford), not “is” (ιδιας επιλυσεως — estin).
Of private interpretation (γνωμης — idias epiluseōs). Ablative case of origin or source in the predicate as with του τεου — gnōmēs in Acts 20:3 and with εχ ημων — tou theou and επιλυσις — ex hēmōn in 2 Corinthians 4:7. “No prophecy of Scripture comes out of private disclosure,” not “of private interpretation.” The usual meaning of επιλυω — epilusis is explanation, but the word does not occur elsewhere in the N.T. It occurs in the papyri in the sense of solution and even of discharge of a debt. Spitta urges “dissolved” as the idea here. The verb epiluō to unloose, to untie, to release, occurs twice in the N.T., once (Mark 4:34) where it can mean “disclose” about parables, the other (Acts 19:39) where it means to decide. It is the prophet‘s grasp of the prophecy, not that of the readers that is here presented, as the next verse shows.
http://www.studylight.org/com/rwp/view.cgi?bk=60&ch=1
But lets pretend your translation is correct, for the sake of argument. Is your interpretation also correct?
That no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation.
Does YOUR translation say "That no prophecy of scripture is UNDERSTOOD by private interpretation", or does it use the word "MADE"?
It uses "MADE", which means it is talking about the Holy Spirit's interaction with the WRITING human, when the prophecy was MADE. Either translation is adequate for expressing the idea that a prophet, MAKING a prophecy under the Holy Spirit, is not acting on his own, but under the direction of the Holy Spirit. But even your less accurate translation does NOT apply to UNDERSTANDING the scripture, only the MAKING.
"we who admit that we can profit from the intellectual work product of 2000 years of scholarship"
If your 2000 years of scholarship cannot distinguish between the words "made" and "understood", then your 2000 years has been ill spent. It might have been better spent if the focus had been on explaining scripture instead of explaining it away...
"But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. He will glorify me because it is from me that he will receive what he will make known to you. All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will receive from me what he will make known to you.”
I’m shaking the dust off my feet.
I am willing to discuss these things with people who engage in good faith, and a willingness to consider all things.
Redleghunter appears to be such a person. Others not so much.
Thank you for your honest statement. When there is doubt we should lean on the Words of The Good Shepherd:
Luke 24:
44 And he said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything that is written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets and psalms must be fulfilled.” 45 Then he opened their minds to understand the scriptures, 46 and said to them, “Thus it is written that the Christ would suffer and would rise from the dead on the third day, 47 and repentance and the forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in his name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.
The 1545 Luther Bible has the same books as modern day Protestant Bibles. You can check it out on Biblegateway:
http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/?action=getVersionInfo&vid=10
I will note James, Esther, Jude and Revelation are all there. The 1599 Geneva Bible also has all 27 NT books.
So I don’t see where the claim of 7 NT books were tossed by Luther.
Where exactly is the below from in Maccabees?
“38 After the battle Judas led his men to the town of Adullam. It was the day before the Sabbath, so they purified themselves according to Jewish custom and then observed the holy day. 39 By the following day it was urgent that they gather up the bodies of the men who had been killed in battle and bury them in their family tombs. 40 But on each of the dead, hidden under their clothes, they found small images of the gods worshiped in Jamnia, which the Law forbids Jews to wear. Everyone then knew why these men had been killed. 41 So they praised the ways of the Lord, the just judge, who reveals what is hidden, 42 and they begged him that this sin might be completely blotted out. Then, Judas, that great man, urged the people to keep away from sin, because they had seen for themselves what had happened to those men who had sinned. 43 He also took up a collection from all his men, totaling about four pounds of silver, and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering. Judas did this noble thing because he believed in the resurrection of the dead. 44 If he had not believed that the dead would be raised, it would have been foolish and useless to pray for them. 45 In his firm and devout conviction that all of God’s faithful people would receive a wonderful reward, Judas made provision for a sin offering to set free from their sin those who had died.”
PING
I know you love these canon debates:)
When it comes to what we call the OT canon, I think Jesus is the Final Authority:
Luke 24 (DRA):
44 And he said to them: These are the words which I spoke to you, while I was yet with you, that all things must needs be fulfilled, which are written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. 45 Then he opened their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures.
I don’t see any 1545 bible at that link. I see a modern reprinting of that bible. Luther treated the NT deuterocanonicals the same way he treated the OT ones: he separated them into the back of the Testament, and inserted a preface denying their authenticity.
2 Maccabees 12
That canon of yours would also exclude Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Kings, Chronicles (not Samuel, which the Jews regarded as a book of David, which they counted among the Books of the Prophets), Ezra, Nehemiah, Job, and so on.
What you actually testify to is that Jesus did not include the Khetuvim when he cited the scriptures to the Pharisees, because the Pharisees did not regard the Khetuvim as authoritative at that time.
Been posting here regularly for about a month now...I have yet to see an Evangelical post an article on the canon to kick up dust. Maybe they have in the past, but what I have seen is what you posted previously...responses to Roman Catholic articles posted on the FR RF.
The preponderance of the evidence seems to support the above summary. It is clear from the evidence presented the ECFs saw a clear distinction between what was scripture for doctrine and what was not. At Trent, there was a NEED for the Roman bishop to make the apocrypha equal with the historic canon. So while folks are reliving the wars of the 16th century, let's hear the Words of Jesus Christ:
Luke 24:
44 And he said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything that is written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets and psalms must be fulfilled.” 45 Then he opened their minds to understand the scriptures, 46 and said to them, “Thus it is written that the Christ would suffer and would rise from the dead on the third day, 47 and repentance and the forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in his name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.
Sir, two-three (more on weekends) articles a day used in a non-caucus forum is clearly poking Evangelicals in the eye.
What is the real tragedy? That the FR RF cannot have one thread where we all discuss the content of the Bible. We only argue on canons. Do I think most Roman Catholics put the apocrypha above the remainder of the Bible? No I don’t, but coming to this forum that impression can be had.
So over the weekend I posted an article on the Miracles of Jesus Christ in the Gospels. Shockingly I received little in the way of comments as I expected it could be a thread where Evangelicals, Roman Catholics, Lutherans and Eastern Orthodox could come and rejoice in Jesus Christ. However, this is where the majority of us decide to hang our hat.
That would have solved much:)
He did not have NT deutercanonicals. I think this was disproved a few times on this thread. The link I sent you has the entire list of OT and NT which were published in 1545.
Thanks. I will search more, however so far I see no “thus saith The Lord” in Maccabees. A bit rusty on Maccabees. Is there a prophet involved anywhere giving instructions to the Jews? Is there a reference to using the Urim and Thummim?
I did not say that. Look at the context of the Words of Jesus in what I quoted.
There are several other places where Jesus quotes directly to as He did in Matthew 24.
You didn’t SAY that, but that’s the necessary implication if your words were true: If Jesus is laying out the canon by appealing solely to the Law and the Prophets, than ALL biblical books not contained therein would suffer the same fate as the deuterocanonicals.
Matthew 24 refers to prophets from A to Z, not from first to last. Zechariah was NOT the last prophet to die, nor was Chronicles the last bible book to be written, and you make a silly presumption to suppose that the deuterocanonicals were ever published after the rest of the OT before Jerome. zx
Also, I just confirmed that “Zecharias, [grand]son of Iddo,” cited by Jesus is not the Zecharias at the end of Chronicles, Zecharias ben Jehoida, but he *is* the much later prophet of the Book of Zecharias.
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.