Replies

I have been barely nipping in and out of this thread (which is now approaching 7,000 replies: is that a record?). If I am now neglecting some points made previously, and unnecessarily reasserted others that have already been repeated ad nauseam, I ask only your understanding that I have read only a small fraction of the material on this thread.

Like, I daresay, most of us, I do not do original research in Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic. I have to rely on others more ancient or more learned.

To simplify the matter, I think you end up having to rely on one of these two authorities for the OT canon, either

the canon developed by post-Temple rabbinical Judaism (the Pharisees), or
the canon accepted by the earliest Christian churches and confirmed by the earliest Christian synods and councils.

My view? That to take the word of those who rejected Christ (the 1st-2nd century Pharisaical rabbis) over the Septuagint used by the Apostles (1st century) and the canon confirmed by the Damasian List (383 AD) and at Hippo and Carthage (393 and 397) by Christian synods, is not reasonable for a Christian.

Christ had stingingly condemned the Pharisees seven-fold (Matthew 23), the number"7" signifying in the Bible a complete and total condemnation. The post-Second Temple Pharisees took up the banner of those who had rejected Christ. I would hesitate to use the canon the post-Temple Pharisaic rabbis developed when they were right in the midst of the bitterest anti-Christian polemic.

Jerome, who spent many years in Palestine and who had engaged Rabbis to teach him the Hebrew language, at first rejected the Deuteros because they were not recognized as canonical by the Rabbis. He was finally converted to the view that he ought to accept them because they had been accepted and received by the Christian Churches. Augustine of Hippo also declared without qualification that one is to "prefer those that are received by all Catholic Churches to those which some of them do not receive."

One reason rabbinical Judaism (from Jamnia or wherever they had study-centers) decided to cut the deuterocanon, seems to be that they did not possess an extant copy in Hebrew, which was one of their key criteria. They were struggling to assert Hebrew as the sole Jewish liturgical language, and to delegitimize the Christians, who, like the writers of the NT, overwhelmingly used the (Greek) Septuagint.

That Jesus and the Apostles used the Septuagint, would itself have been a count against it from the Judaizers' point of view. Incidentally, when the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, it was learned that the Deuterocanonical books were, in fact, in written form in Hebrew during the period from about 200 B.C. to 68 A.D.

(I thought that was an real eye-opener when I read that in Jaroslav Pelikan's Biblical research and realized the implications.)

Doctrine comes from the Apostles, and was given to the Church before a word of the NT was ever written. My argument is not that the decision about the Deuterocanonicals was made by one man (Pope Damasus, 383) or by one or two or three church synods or councils (Hippo, Carthage, Nicaea) --- though that sure helps. My argument is that those canons themselves were derived from what the local churches had received as Scripture and were using.

Here's the key: It was not theory. It was practice.

The Reformation period saw the rejection of these books, which entails the rejection of the practice of the oldest local churches. By whose authority did they delegitimize the earliest Christian collections?

That has never been made clear to me, though I've searched high and low. Can you name the 16th / 17th century King, council, synod, or editorial board which had the authority to reject the criterion of "earliest Christian practice"?

And if you can give me that actual name or those names, I have this further question. For Scripture to be inerrant, the selection of the books, 1,000+ years later, would have had to be inerrant. Who made this particular 16th century man, or that particular editorial board, and them alone, inerrant? I'm here to learn.

>>To simplify the matter, I think you end up having to rely on one of these two authorities<<

No, I don't think we need "rely" on them. We can surely take their advice but to "rely" on them is foundation for error as we have seen many fall for. We know that Paul had to correct error in his day. We know that most of the "churches" by AD90 had allowed error to creep in and where warned by Christ.

>>My argument is that those canons themselves were derived from what the local churches had received as Scripture and were using.<<

Risky at best. As we see in Revelation, the "chances" of you being on the right track is only one in seven. That's only a 14% chance of being correct. There is no assurance that those second century "churches" or even the "church" leadership were correct as we know error and false teaching was already present in the first century. To invoke second century or later and "rely" on it without comparison to what the apostles taught is worthless for those seeking truth.

>>Here's the key: It was not theory. It was practice.<<

As we have seen in the message to the seven churches in Revelation, "practice" in even the churches of the later part of the first century was no assurance of correctness.

You argue for the inclusion of books that have proven errors. You want "inerrant" yet care not whether whether or not those books have errors within them. You invoke first century churches yet ignore that 86% of the churches even in the last part of the first century were rife with error. I for one am not impressed with your "arguments".

Paul commended the Bereans for "searching the scriptures daily" and said anyone who taught what they did not to be considered accursed. On those two counts alone the Catholic "arguement" is left wanting.

Here's the key: It was not theory. It was practice.

And what the followers of Rome PRACTICE does NOT line up with what it preaches!

The Reformation period saw the rejection of these books, which entails the rejection of the practice of the oldest local churches. By whose authority did they delegitimize the earliest Christian collections? That has never been made clear to me, though I've searched high and low. Can you name the 16th / 17th century King, council, synod, or editorial board which had the authority to reject the criterion of "earliest Christian practice"? And if you can give me that actual name or those names, I have this further question. For Scripture to be inerrant, the selection of the books, 1,000+ years later, would have had to be inerrant. Who made this particular 16th century man, or that particular editorial board, and them alone, inerrant? I'm here to learn.

I will take you at your word that you are here to learn.

You should acknowledge that the canon was STILL in flux up to Trent and beyond. The Reformers were standing upon the shoulders of many ancient fathers who rejected the Apocrypha/Deuterocanonicals as inspired/God-breathed Scripture. Usage of these books in the early church for encouragement, edification, even in liturgies, isn't what is denied nor argued, it is the inclusion of them as equal to divinely-inspired Scriptures that is rejected and WAS rejected by Jerome and many others long before the Reformation. You can read here Did Jerome Change His Mind About the Apocrypha, and learn that:

"In his later years St. Jerome did indeed accept the Deuterocanonical books of the Bible. In fact, he wound up strenuously defending their status as inspired Scripture, writing, "What sin have I committed if I followed the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susanna, the Son of the Three Children, and the story of Bel and the Dragon, which are not found in the Hebrew volume (ie. canon), proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. For I wasn't relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they [the Jews] are wont to make against us" (Against Rufinus 11:33 [A.D. 402]). In earlier correspondence with Pope Damasus, Jerome did not call the deuterocanonical books unscriptural, he simply said that Jews he knew did not regard them as canonical. But for himself, he acknowledged the authority of the Church in defining the canon. When Pope Damasus and the Councils of Carthage and Hippo included the deuterocanon in Scripture, that was good enough for St. Jerome. He "followed the judgment of the churches."

Shea not only claims that Jerome accepted them, but that he “strenuously” defended them. A word used to intrigue the reader, but there is no evidence that he defended them, let alone “strenuously.” Furthermore, from the citation above, he states that Jerome followed the “judgment of the churches”, which Shea translates as the synods of Hippo and Carthage, but he is mistaken. Contextually, the “judgment of the churches” refers to Theodotion’s translation of Daniel which the churches were using instead of the Septuagint version. To add to this, he couldn’t have followed Carthage considering they met 17 years after Jerome penned the above. Both Hippo and Carthage were regional councils, didn’t speak for the entire church, thus it wasn’t mandated that Jerome submit to their decisions. Yet, it was Theodotion’s version Jerome refers to when he mentions the “judgment of the churches” and not their decision on canon:

"In reference to Daniel my answer will be that I did not say that he was not a prophet; on the contrary, I confessed in the very beginning of the Preface that he was a prophet. But I wished to show what was the opinion upheld by the Jews; and what were the arguments on which they relied for its proof. I also told the reader that the version read in the Christian churches was not that of the Septuagint translators but that of Theodotion. It is true, I said that the Septuagint version was in this book very different from the original, and that it was condemned by the right judgment of the churches of Christ; but the fault was not mine who only stated the fact, but that of those who read the version. We have four versions to choose from: those of Aquila, Symmachus, the Seventy, and Theodotion. The churches choose to read Daniel in the version of Theodotion. What sin have I committed in following the judgment of the churches? But when I repeat what the Jews say against the Story of Susanna and the Hymn of the Three Children, and the fables of Bel and the Dragon, which are not contained in the Hebrew Bible, the man who makes this a charge against me proves himself to be a fool and a slanderer; for I explained not what I thought but what they commonly say against us. I did not reply to their opinion in the Preface, because I was studying brevity, and feared that I should seem to be writing not a Preface but a book. I said therefore, "As to which this is not the time to enter into discussion." Otherwise from the fact that I stated that Porphyry had said many things against this prophet, and called, as witnesses of this, Methodius, Eusebius, and Apollinarius, who have replied to his folly in many thousand lines, it will be in his power to accuse me for not baring written in my Preface against the books of Porphyry. If there is any one who pays attention to silly things like this, I must tell him loudly and free that no one is compelled to read what he does not want; that I wrote for those who asked me, not for those who would scorn me, for the grateful not the carping, for the earnest not the indifferent. Still, I wonder that a man should read the version of Theodotion the heretic and judaizer, and should scorn that of a Christian, simple and sinful though he may be.

The issue was Theodotion’s (a known heretic) translation of Daniel which was being used by the churches. The translation was faulty, wasn’t based on the Septuagint, and condemned by the “right judgment of the churches”, but the reader can see that this in no way applies to the decision on canon made at the local councils of Hippo and Carthage.

Jerome goes on to say that he is merely stating Jewish opinion against these books. Although this was the view he espoused, he was not the originator, and it put him in the uncomfortable position of arguing with the Jews on this. J.N.D. Kelly expounds:

"Jerome, conscious of the difficulty of arguing with Jews on the basis of books they spurned and anyhow regarding the Hebrew original as authoritative, was adamant that anything not found in it was ‘to be classed among the apocrypha’, not in the canon; later he grudgingly conceded that the Church read some of these books for edification, but not to support doctrine." [J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (San Francisco: Harper, 1960), p. 55].

He was further riled by the fact that the churches followed the translation of a known heretic instead of a Christian such as himself. As an aside, Shea wrongfully associates Pope Damasus as being in agreement with the alleged “decision” at Hippo and Carthage, but Damasus died in 384 A.D, nine years before Hippo (393) and thirteen years before Carthage (397).

Shea continues with the usual RC apologetic misrepresentations against Martin Luther, naming him as the culprit who excluded the deuterocanonicals (Jim Swan did a wonderful job of putting the proper perspective on Luther and the canon here) Yet, I’ve always found this to be odd reasoning considering the Roman Catholic canon wasn’t decided until Trent. Cardinal Cajetan (the same one who opposed Luther) and Cardinal Ximenes, both contemporaries of the era, wrote against the canonicity of these books as well. Further, there was opposition within Trent regarding these books, spearheaded by the group led by Giralamo Cardinal Seripando (for more information on this, read Hubert Jedin’s Cardinal Seripando, Papal Legate at Trent). The mere fact that there was opposition at Trent substantiates that no canon was in effect where the “judgment of the churches” would authoritatively bind the Catholic to the decision at Hippo and Carthage.

Shea reiterates his error here:

"As St. Jerome said, it is upon the basis of "the judgment of the churches" and no other that the canon of Scripture is known, since the Scriptures are simply the written portion of the Church's apostolic tradition."

Again, Shea is embellishing Jerome’s statements regarding the “judgment of the churches” to mean something that it isn’t. As I’ve already shown, contextually, Jerome is saying something else entirely. Yet, Shea isn’t the only one who tries to make Jerome pro-deuteros. Some Catholic apologists play more loosely with Jerome’s words. An apologist who calls himself “Matt1618” asserts in his internet article “Did Some Church Fathers Reject the Deuterocanonicals as Scripture” (found here: http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/deut.html) that Jerome did indeed show an acceptance of these books because he never denied them inspiration and he called them “Scripture” in his later writings. This is merely “reading between the lines” in an attempt to find something more favorable to his position. He states:

"In fact it is true that none of the Fathers, even St. Jerome, ever deny their inspiration."

I don’t know how “Matt1618” would define this “denial”, but all this amounts to wishful thinking. To put it simply, what Jerome states in his prefaces and commentaries amounts to a denial of their inspiration as well as their canonicity. To put it plainly, if Jerome states that a book isn’t canonical it is only because Jerome doesn’t believe it is inspired. Scripture is “God-breathed” and men wrote as they were inspired of God. Inspired books are in the canon because they came from the very mouth of God. It defeats the purpose of the canon if some “God-breathed” Scriptures are included and others aren’t. If a book is not in the canon, it is because it is not inspired. In essence, “Matt1618” is implying that Jerome didn’t see “inspiration” as the criterion for inclusion into the canon and that a book can be “inspired” and “Scripture” and, for whatever reasons, be outside of the canon. In his commentary on Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus, Jerome states:

"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 Ecclesiasticus) for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church."

According to Jerome, these books are ecclesiastical, capable of spiritual teaching, but cannot be used for supporting church doctrine. This begs the question: Since when is known Scripture not to be used for supporting doctrine? Even Scripture itself attests:

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

Furthermore, Jerome, emphatically states in his preface to the books of Samuel and Kings:

"This preface to the Scriptures may serve as a "helmeted" introduction to all the books which we turn from Hebrew into Latin, so that we may be assured that what is not found in our list must be placed amongst the Apocryphal writings. Wisdom, therefore, which generally bears the name of Solomon, and the book of Jesus, the Son of Sirach, and Judith, and Tobias, and the Shepherd are not in the canon."

In his preface to the Daniel he states:

"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."

Four things are to be noted here. The first being that the additions weren’t in the Hebrew Scriptures; secondly, that Jerome calls Bel and the Dragon a “fable”; thirdly, that they were appended to his Vulgate; and fourthly, that they were marked with an “obelus” which is a critical symbol used in ancient manuscripts to mark a questionable passage. Nothing here reveals any indication that Jerome held, at least, the additions to be inspired Scripture.

Again, to Jerome, the extra books were “…not to give authority to the doctrines of the Church” and they “…are not in the canon.” Attempting to draw skepticism by claiming that he didn’t call them “uninspired” is leading the reader at best. Sure, they have some ecclesiastical value within them, but a book doesn’t need to be inspired or canonical to have ecclesiastical value. Although there are other passages from his writings that I can cite, I believe these suffice in showing that Jerome did not believe the Apocryphal books were inspired.

RC apologists, those who argue this way, are merely using sophistry to recreate Jerome and place him on the side of the Deuterocanonicals, but the evidence really doesn’t give them much to stand on. I guess this is due to the fact that Jerome is one of the Doctors of the Church and he happened to disagree that these books were inspired Scripture. It is a source of embarrassment to them so they attempt to salvage whatever they can and find themselves reading “between the lines” of his writings in a futile attempt to win him back. There is no record showing that Jerome had a change of heart regarding these books and the very fact that scholarly clergymen, such as the aforementioned Cardinals, used Jerome’s position as a catalyst for their own disagreements with these books shows an understanding that he never wavered, never changed his position. But some RC apologists choose to blind themselves from the facts.

In conclusion, Augustine, who was a contemporary of Jerome, advocated the Apocryphal books and used his weighty suffrage to influence the African synods (Hippo and Carthage), but his appeal to them was strictly emotional and, as evidenced in the City of God, he used folklore to gain acceptance of these books. Regarding canon issues and languages, it was Jerome who was the canon scholar and not Augustine. In their correspondence on the issue of the Latin translation (dated 404 AD), Jerome chides Augustine for misunderstanding the nuances of his translations (see here: http://www.bible-researcher.com/vulgate2.html). Augustine chose not to side with Jerome, but continued to push the Septuagint over the Hebrew, even though the Septuagint itself was translated into Greek from the Hebrew. Augustine’s adherence to the LXX was based on the story of the “Seventy” which were the 72 Jewish translators who translated the Hebrew into the Greek language. Augustine tells the story of how these men worked separately in cells and when they compared their manuscripts, they were uniform in every detail, word for word. Jerome calls the story of the cells “fables” and made up, but Augustine claimed that because they worked under the same Spirit, they were led in this endeavor, thus proving the LXX to be of God. What Augustine either didn’t understand or ignored is that the “Seventy” only translated the first 5 books of Moses, the Pentateuch. In the website “The Septuagint Online” states:

Philo of Alexandria (fl. 1st c CE) confirms that only the Torah was commissioned to be translated, and some modern scholars have concurred, noting a kind of consistency in the style of the Greek Penteteuch [sic]. Over the course of the next three centuries, however, other books of the Hebrew Scriptures were translated into Greek in an order that is not altogether clear. By observing technical terms and translation styles, by comparing the Greek versions to the Dead Sea Scrolls, and by comparing them to Hellenistic literature, scholars are trying to stitch together a history of the translations that eventually found their way into collections. It seems that sometimes a Hebrew book was translated more than once, or that a particular Greek translation was revised. In other cases, a work was composed afresh in Greek, yet was included in the collection of scriptures (from http://www.kalvesmaki.com/LXX/index.htm)

Only the Pentateuch was translated by the “Seventy” and Augustine truly had no clear reasoning in accepting the Septuagint and the books not found in the Hebrew text. It would seem he influenced men through the use of quaint myths or hearsay, but as for Jerome he was resolute and never changed his mind, never follow a “decision” made by the councils influenced by Augustine and, most obviously, he never felt the need to. Jerome denied both the inspiration and the canonicity of the added books and no amount of historical revision will change the facts.