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."
>> Is there a prophet involved anywhere giving instructions to the Jews? <<
That’s actually a fantastically complex question.
The exact quote, “Thus saith the lord” is not found in Maccabees, nor Genesis, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Ruth, Esther (the Hebrew version of which makes no mention whatsoever of God), Ezra, Nehemiah, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, or the Song of Solomon.
Are there any prophets in Maccabees?
Yes and no. Maccabees refers directly to the cessation of prophets. But then includes a prophet. Apparently, Maccabees’ denial of prophecy refers to the office which anointed a king. Some, including ancient Jews, have even denigrated Maccabees because the line of kings which was established by the brothers Maccabee was not anointed by a king and became thoroughly corrupted. But if the Book of Maccabees (first) specifically states that God is denying the people such a ruler, how can it be faulted in that the rules who emerged were not anointed?
But wait... no prophets, no prophecy and no prophecy, no Divine Word, right?
Not exactly. The denial of prophecy Maccabees refers to is an event which occurs BEFORE the completion of the exile. While God quit establishing messiahs (anointed kings) through the office of the prophet, the gift of divine inspiration persisted. In fact, Daniel, Ezra and Nehemiah all followed that end of prophecy. Ancient Jews numbered “Daniel” among the books of History, in fact, because Daniel, while clearly a prophet in the sense of being one inspired with the Word of God, was not a prophet in the sense of being one through whom regal authority came. Also, Simeon and Anna were explicitly labelled prophets in the book of Luke.
Meh. they were only trying to install their own pope. A Christendom without a patriarch hadn’t occurred to anyone yet. (King John I of England even tried to place himself under Islamic authority rather than under papal authority because he couldn’t imagine such a thing!!! Fortunately, the Muslim ruler wouldn’t take him: any people who could be ruled by such a treacherous man would bring only discredit and crisis, he figured.)
“by a king” was supposed to read “as king”
A few points for clarity since it seems we all go round and round on "canons to the left of me, canons to right of me..."
When we look at the books of the Bible we should consider the following:
1. What was truly the Israelite/Jewish/Temple tradition of their canon? That is a VERY important consideration.
Absent #1 if no one wants to trust a bunch of Jews who denied our Savior, we should consider the following:
2. Is God directly speaking and are His Words recorded?
3. Is there a prophet who is declaring "thus saith The Lord"?
4. Is their a clear Kingly blood line presented which eventually leads to the Messiah (think Genealogy)?
5. Is there a clear fulfillment of God's Promised deliverance or fulfilled prophecy from a #2 and #3 above?
6. Is there evidence of affirming other OT Scriptures (linkage)?
7. Does the book have Messianic Prophecies?
8. What does the NT tell us? Meaning what did Jesus Christ say, confirm, quote, cite; same thing for the apostles.
When all of the above is explored, you will no doubt say the Apocrypha belongs in the Bible on equal footing with the 66 books. Evangelicals we say no they don't as well based on the above. It will most likely hinge on #1 above.
Perhaps we should ask a Jew? Oh right, the Pope and Luther did not like Jews so we can't go there. So perhaps we should look at what Jewish Christians use for their Bible. That would be quite telling?:
http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Orthodox-Jewish-Bible-OJB/
http://www.biblestudytools.com/cjb/
“Sir, two-three (more on weekends) articles a day used in a non-caucus forum is clearly poking Evangelicals in the eye.”
Evangelicals proselytize, do they not? The least charitable interpretation is that two or three (more on weekends) articles a day used in a non-caucus forum is proselytizing, at worst.
“What is the real tragedy? That the FR RF cannot have one thread where we all discuss the content of the Bible.”
Yes, but then we have to wonder why this is so.
I suspect that you think it is because of the Catholics, while I think it is because of the Protestants.
It would seem possible to objectively determine which it is.
“So over the weekend I posted an article on the Miracles of Jesus Christ in the Gospels.”
I don’t remember seeing it.
Evangelism: the spreading of the Christian gospel by public preaching or personal witness.
Big difference. What I keep telling my Army associates.
Apologetics: reasoned arguments or writings in justification of something, typically a theory or religious doctrine.
The above is what goes on here primarily. However, in only a few weeks of regularly posting here, the "apologetics" happening here is like the movie "The Notebook." Same arguments every week, same dueling links etc.
I can probably highlight this weekend's threads:
-Sola fide
-Sola scriptura
-Canon/Apocrypha
-Luther was a drunk, letch, tore up the Bible, chased around milk maids
>> But wait... no prophets, no prophecy and no prophecy, no Divine Word, right?
>> A few points for clarity since it seems we all go round and round on “canons to the left of me, canons to right of me...”
>>When we look at the books of the Bible we should consider the following:
>> 1. What was truly the Israelite/Jewish/Temple tradition of their canon? That is a VERY important consideration.
Jesus himself observed the Feast of the Dedication described within, on the very occasion in which he self-identified with the Temple, and predicted his death and resurrection. We’ve discussed the varied status of the canon at the time of his death.
>>Absent #1 if no one wants to trust a bunch of Jews who denied our Savior, we should consider the following:
>> 2. Is God directly speaking and are His Words recorded?
Yes to the first part, no to the second part.
>> 3. Is there a prophet who is declaring “thus saith The Lord”?
An invalid standard, as discussed earlier.
>> 4. Is their a clear Kingly blood line presented which eventually leads to the Messiah (think Genealogy)?
Completely irrelevant.
>> 5. Is there a clear fulfillment of God’s Promised deliverance or fulfilled prophecy from a #2 and #3 above?
Yes.
>> 6. Is there evidence of affirming other OT Scriptures (linkage)?
Yes
>> 7. Does the book have Messianic Prophecies?
Yes.
>> 8. What does the NT tell us? Meaning what did Jesus Christ say, confirm, quote, cite; same thing for the apostles.
Jesus himself confirms the Feast of the Dedication in scripture by not observing it, but taking the occasion to self-identify with it. I know this is outside of scripture, so you’ll probably reject it, but the early church even saw his very birth as the confirmation of the Feast of the Dedication. We’ve already discussed how Maccabees is cited in Hebrews.
>>When all of the above is explored, you will no doubt say the Apocrypha belongs in the Bible on equal footing with the 66 books. Evangelicals we say no they don’t as well based on the above. It will most likely hinge on #1 above.
>> Perhaps we should ask a Jew? Oh right, the Pope and Luther did not like Jews so we can’t go there. So perhaps we should look at what Jewish Christians use for their Bible. That would be quite telling?:
>>http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Orthodox-Jewish-Bible-OJB/
>> http://www.biblestudytools.com/cjb/
So we should pick the Jews you pick? We should only pick the Jews who continue to isolate themselves as a separate tradition within Christendom, as you have done?
Why ask them, and not those who have reconciled fully to the body of Christ? Why not ask Saint Peter? Saint Paul (or whoever wrote the Letter to the Hebrews— I believe it was St Paul, but I recognize others do not)? Pope St. Clement? Saint Ignatius of Antioch (the first post-apostolic bishop of Antioch)? Cardinal Lustiger, survivor of Auschwitz and former head of the largest European diocese? St. Edith Stein? Former Chief Rabbi of Rome Israeli Zolli?
One look at the posters, you will see these articles are all posted by Roman Catholics. Perhaps since I am a "pup" here on FR, the Roman Catholics are in reactionary mode and that explains the multiple threads on the same topics.
However it is my observation as someone educated through college in the Roman Catholic tradition, that you should elicit the help of a priest to help form some of the Roman Catholic responses. To date the responses are canned, linked and poorly argued. There is too much emotion (anger at times) in the responses.
Just some observations.
Nice rebuttal. Dismiss what is inconvenient. I’ll bite. Where you answered in the affirmative, give me the books, chapters and verses.
You are making some very bold claims. I never agreed to Maccabees CITED in Hebrews. I pointed out you were incorrect in that assertion. But if you want to re-engage on it, do so with the above. For ease, do what I do and put the text you are referring to in the response.
For someone who has relied on me finding out what his arguments are, rather than actually stating them, you make a lot of demands on my time. Tell you what: read the books.
Not a bad idea. I did read Tobit...When I got to the burning fish guts to ward off demons, my “Danger Will Robinson” alarm went off.
How about this.
1. Pick one reference to the Apocrypha you feel strongly Jesus or the apostles addressed or referred to which stands alone without other OT references to the same. Just one is all I am asking. That should hone it down to strongest argument critera and eliminate us both flipping back and forth trying to answer multiple questions.
2. This can be a follow up to #1 once we have established the strongest argument. We can transition to discussions on how the Apocrypha influences Christology and influences our Soteriology. This is basically the “sufficiency” question. Are the 39 OT and 27 NT books not sufficient enough without the Apocrypha.
3. After this we could discuss doctrines derived from the Apocrypha and if they are in conflict with doctrines stated in the 39 OT and 27 NT books. Do we have contradictions?
Again let’s not dive in to all the above until we address #1 above.
Final note. As I stated in a previous post. One could argue for Maccabees from a “prophecy fulfillment” stand point. Events recorded in Maccabees touch on fulfilled prophecies of Daniel. On the other hand so do the era accounts of Josephus.
1. All my posts were in reference to 2 Maccabees.
2./3. If it passes test #2, you’ll assert that the doctrine is false, because your own personal opinion of scripture will have been formed denying the deuterocanonical doctrines.
If it passes test #3, you’ll say it wasn’t necessary for doctrine.
But the truth is sublime: 2 Maccabees is necessary for properly understanding the doctrine present but admittedly somewhat vaguely stated in Hebrews, Revelation and 2 Peter.
For instance, Shysters preying on Protestants (like Joseph Smith) have come up with all sorts of nonsense to explain what “baptizing for the sake of the dead” refers to. But if you understand from Maccabees the notion that doing good deeds can help you atone for the sins of people in purgatory, then we can understand that “for the sake of the dead” means that the blessed act of baptism isn’t only helping those baptized, but the good deeds help those whose name they are done in be lifted out of purgatory.
Since you ascribe to doctrines opposed to Maccabees, you won’t accept that this is what “baptism for the sake of the dead” means.
Why that sounds just what so many RCs do. I see post after post damning Luther for dissenting from the canon Trent affirmed, as if he was a maverick dissenting from an infallible indisputable canon, rather than scholarly disagreements continuing thru centuries and right into Trent. With the only infallible canon being over Luther's dead body. And such things as that 2Mac. 12 teaches purgatory. Or that presbuteros means priest. Etc. And parroting dubious or misleading quotes from Luther, and presenting him as i we saw him as a pope. And RCs believe them!
Boy, you’re late to the discussion. Try reading the papal bull confirming the Council of Florence, which included bishops representing all but one of the Eastern kingdoms.
You must be you’re late to the research. Try reading my post and tell me where it is wrong.
“Big difference. What I keep telling my Army associates.”
One spreads the Christian gospel in the hope of converting people to Christianity. It is a distinction without a difference.
“Same arguments every week, same dueling links etc.”
Yes, there are some here who have made a career of spreading falsehoods about the Catholic Church. Quite often, some Catholic will trouble himself to point out the errors. Then the protestants begin to behave badly.
Liars, disinformationists, slanderers and propagandists abound on internet forums. Many claiming to be Christians.
My point being that everything you mentioned has already been discussed. You want individual responses to your single-phrase assertions? Try reading what has already been read.
You do realize those are Jewish Christian Bibles?
If you read more carefully what I wrote, it should be quite obvious that I do know that. Messianic Judaism is a “separate movement within Christianity.”
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.