Replies

Do you not get what he has written? He asserts that the Jews exclude the works from Divine Scriptures, even the Hagiographa (by which he means the Scrolls). How can you translate from Hebrew to Latin, when the source is Chaldean? But whereas in other places in his work, he's unclear (until the letter I posted earlier) that it's the Jews', not his own, assertion that deuterocanonicals aren't Divine Scripture, he makes very clear his assessment here: he would rather disregard the opinion of the Pharisees than to have the Bishops condemn him.

Well, let me make sure I understand your point...are you actually saying the Jews "excluded" Ruth, Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Canticles, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Daniel, Esther, Ezra and Chronicles (the Hagiographa) from their recognition of what makes up Sacred Scripture? Maybe you are thinking about the "Sadducees—unlike the Pharisees but like the Samaritans—seem to have maintained an earlier and smaller number of texts as canonical, preferring to hold to only what was written in the Law of Moses[18] (making most of the presently accepted canon, both Jewish and Christian, apocryphal in their eyes)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocrypha

I'm going to need some actual evidence for that other than what you think Jerome may have meant. Because when he prefaced the Apocrypha/Deuterocanonicals in his Latin translation of the Old Testament, he stated this with the prologues:

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. The first book of Maccabees I have found to be Hebrew, the second is Greek, as can be proved from the very style.

In the prologue to Esdras he mentions 3 and 4 Esdras as being apocrypha. In his prologue to the books of Solomon, he says: Also included is the book of the model of virtue (παναρετος) Jesus son of Sirach, and another falsely ascribed work (ψευδεπιγραφος) which is titled Wisdom of Solomon. The former of these I have also found in Hebrew, titled not Ecclesiasticus as among the Latins, but Parables, to which were joined Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs, as though it made of equal worth the likeness not only of the number of the books of Solomon, but also the kind of subjects. The second was never among the Hebrews, the very style of which reeks of Greek eloquence. And none of the ancient scribes affirm this one is of Philo Judaeus. Therefore, just as the Church also reads the books of Judith, Tobias, and the Maccabees, but does not receive them among 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.

He mentions the book of Baruch in his prologue to the Jeremias and does not explicitly refer to it as apocryphal, but he does mention that "it is neither read nor held among the Hebrews". In his prologue to the Judith he mentions that "among the Hebrews, the authority [of Judith] came into contention", but that it was "counted in the number of Sacred Scriptures" by the First Council of Nicaea. In his reply to Rufinus, he affirmed that he was consistent with the choice of the church regarding which version of the deuterocanonical portions of Daniel to use, which the Jews of his day did not include: 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. (Against Rufinus, II:33 (AD 402)).https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_apocrypha#Vulgate_prologues

Notice the part about "fools and slanderers" was concerning the Story of Susanna and the Hymn of the Three Children, and the fables of Bel and the Dragon - NOT the Hagiography. There is really no denying that the whole issue of these Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical books belonging in the "canon" of Divinely-inspired Scripture has ALWAYS been controversial. I repeat my prior points, if these books were truly inspired by the Holy Spirit, then why would the Jews - unto whom were given the Oracles of God - have rejected them? It's a cop-out to assert they did so because of Christianity seeing as they were supposedly written two hundred years BEFORE Christianity even existed and these books say NOTHING about Christ.

Finally, what do you presume we are missing by not respecting them as Scripture? Why not just admit the true reason for arguing for their inclusion is because Trent "dogmatically" defined them and you can't defy them? Me? I guess I have a higher standard for what I consider my authority. I choose God's TRUE word - that which speaks to my heart and soul, not some men's decision on what is or is not His word. You can keep arguing, but I've said all I want to on this topic. Happy Easter!

>> Finally, what do you presume we are missing by not respecting them as Scripture? <<

The Council of Trent certainly managed to use the books accepted by Luther to utterly refute every one of Luther’s arguments. But the inclusion of the deuterocanonicals provide a valuable context to understand what was meant by New Testament passages that otherwise could be ambiguous, such as the merit of offerings for the atonement of others, the meaning of the Feast of the Dedication, the prayers of the souls in Heaven for those on Earth, the nature of purgatory, etc. What moral doctrine would you miss if you removed the book of Job? Esther? Lamentations?

>> Why not just admit the true reason for arguing for their inclusion is because Trent “dogmatically” defined them and you can’t defy them? <<

It’s hard to take seriously the begging question, “Why not admit your argument is based solely on the need to maintain your argument?” Why do you think Trent dogmatically defined them, then?