Addressing the status of the Apocrypha pre Trent

[BBAS 64]

Good day,

As not to hi-jack the other thread figure I should do some follow up. As I need to give some historical back round to a quote I used from Cardinal Catjetan. As I see it germaine to the historical question that was being addressed.


In addressing the status of the Apocrypha and it’s inclusion with in the Tome of books that make up a Bible at any given time in history. I have posted the Prologue to the Glossa ordinaria written in AD 1498 which was a commentary that was used for many years with in the church, and came about to reflect the understanding of many Scholars and the church in the Middle Ages. The important ace of the work can not be over looked as noted.

The original Glossa ordinaria began as a marginal gloss on the Bible and was attributed to Walafrid Strabo in the tenth century.

For medieval Christians this tool was supremely necessary, indispensable for the reading of the sacred book which could not be understood without it. In their preface of 1617, taking up Peter Lombard's remark about the Gloss as the 'tongue' of Scripture, the Douai theologians gave voice to this sentiment. Many generations, they suggested, 'thought of this collection of scriptural interpretation so highly that they called it the "normal tongue" (glossa ordinaria), the very language (lingua) of Scripture, as it were. When Scripture speaks with it, we understand. But when we read the sacred words without it, we think we hear a language which we do not know.



*Karlfried Froehlich and Margaret Gibson, Biblia Latina Cum Glossa Ordinaria, Introduction to the Facsimile Reprint of the Editio Princeps Adolph Rusch of Strassborg 1480/81 (Brepols-Turnhout, 1992), The Glossed Bible, pp. VIII. .

Now on to the status of the Apocrypha with in published Bibles before the 16 th century.


Complutensian Polyglot Bible (1514-1517).

The New Catholic Encyclopedia …The first Bible which may be considered a Polyglot is that edited at Alcala (in Latin Complutum, hence the name Complutensian Bible), Spain, in 1517, under the supervision and at the expense of Cardinal Ximenes, by scholars of the university founded in that city by the same great Cardinal. It was published in 1520, with the sanction of Leo X. Ximenes wished, he writes, 'to revive the languishing study of the Sacred Scriptures'; and to achieve this object he undertook to furnish students with accurate printed texts of the Old Testament in the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin languages, and of the New Testament in the Greek and Latin. His Bible contains also the Chaldaic Targum of the Pentateuch and an interlinear Latin translation of the Greek Old Testament. The work is in six large volumes, the last of which is made up of a Hebrew and Chaldaic dictionary, a Hebrew grammar, and Greek dictionary. It is said that only six hundred copies were issued; but they found their way into the principal libraries of Europe and had considerable influence on subsequent editions of the Bible

Metzger Notes;

Subsequent to Jerome's time and down to the period of the reformation a continuous succession of the more learned Fathers and theologians in the West maintained the distinctive and unique authority of the books of the Hebrew canon. Such a judgment, for example, was reiterated on the very eve of the Reformation by Cardinal Ximenes in the preface of the magnificent Complutensian Polyglot edition of the Bible which he edited (1514-17)...Even Cardinal Cajetan, Luther's opponent at Augsburg in 1518, gave an unhesitating approval to the Hebrew canon in his Commentary on All the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament, which he dedicated in 1532 to pope Clement VII. He expressly called attention to Jerome's separation of the canonical from the uncanonical books, and maintained that the latter must not be relied upon to establish points of faith, but used only for the edification of the faithful.

Here one can see that this edition was a printed edition of the Hebrew texts.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05286a.htm


In this printing the Apocrypha was added to the back of the book by the Hebrew editors. Tradition tells us that the original printing of 200 of 600 had 2 black pages that separated the writings “apocrypha” from the others. In addition to this Cardinal Catjetan wrote the introduction for the separation of the canon from the apocrypha his view with regards to this issue is well known. In his commentaries which were dedicated to the Pope.

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 Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus 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.

Though the Apocrypha is included in the edition of the Bible, it is clear that there is a clear separation, by the editors and the introduction by Catjetan that would be in line with the historical view pre Trent.

I hope this is helpful in rounding out some more information on the question.

Peace to u,



Bill

 

[De_Maria]

Good day,

And to you.

As not to hi-jack the other thread figure I should do some follow up....Though the Apocrypha is included in the edition of the Bible, it is clear that there is a clear separation, by the editors and the introduction by Catjetan that would be in line with the historical view pre Trent.

Some questions I'd like to ask.

Are you familiar with the Catholic Church's conditions for infallible Teaching?

Do the opinions of Cardinal Cajetan meet these conditions?

Did you know that before the Council of Trent, there was another Ecumenical Council which confirmed the 73 books of the Latin Vulgate and thus of the Deuterocanonical books (aprocrypha) which are included in that Bible?

I hope this is helpful in rounding out some more information on the question.

Peace to u,



Bill

Thanks. Peace to you as well,

De Maria

 

[BBAS 64]

And to you.

Good day, De_Maria

Some questions I'd like to ask.

Are you familiar with the Catholic Church's conditions for infallible Teaching?

Do the opinions of Cardinal Cajetan meet these conditions?

Did you know that before the Council of Trent, there was another Ecumenical Council which confirmed the 73 books of the Latin Vulgate and thus of the Deuterocanonical books (aprocrypha) which are included in that Bible?

Great questions,

Yes I am very familiar with it, I would remind you that the Great Cardinal is pre-Trent so it may in fact be an idea that is foreign to him. So reading you now understanding of the church of romes teaching (codified at Trent) back into history is not historically fair, and quite dishonest.

Yes I am historically aware that there were councils some local some not that had stated such a canon. I suppose you have a need (because the chuch of rome told you the need exists), and thus you would see them as authoritative on the issue … which council works for you.


It is not a historical stretch to say the Cardinal knew of them as well, but says they all fall under correct to Jerome:

For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome

Seeing this is a historical issue as I presented there are a few logical conclusions that can be drawn here, and many questions that require your attention.

Clearly you and the Cardinal would disagree, and the historical realties may account for this IE.. 1. the chuch in rome is telling you x and you believe them, but you could be in error by doing so.

2. You could say that the Cardinal here is in error possible I agree historically unlikely.

What do you attribute this disconnect? Do you have any objective historical data to base it on. Remember it is an historical question, not a question of the validity of what the church of rome teaches about itself.


In Him,



Bill

 

[De_Maria]

Good day, De_Maria

You too, Bill.

Great questions,

Yes I am very familiar with it, I would remind you that the Great Cardinal is pre-Trent so it may in fact be an idea that is foreign to him. So reading you now understanding of the church of romes teaching (codified at Trent) back into history is not historically fair, and quite dishonest.

What do you mean by that? The Council of Florence was an ecumenical Council which infallibly defined the inspired books of the Bible.

Yes I am historically aware that there were councils some local some not that had stated such a canon. I suppose you have a need (because the chuch of rome told you the need exists), and thus you would see them as authoritative on the issue … which council works for you.

Look up the Council of Florence. It is an ecumenical Council. Thus, the definitions of that Council, are infallible.

It is not a historical stretch to say the Cardinal knew of them as well, but says they all fall under correct to Jerome:

1. St. Jerome was also a Bishop. He does not pass the requirements for infallible Teaching.
2. St. Jerome changed his mind about the deuterocanon. The proof is that he included the deuterocanon in his Bible, the Latin Vulgate.

Seeing this is a historical issue as I presented there are a few logical conclusions that can be drawn here, and many questions that require your attention.

Ask away. The fact is you've got your facts twisted. The historical fact is that the deuterocanon were always considered inspired books by the one entity that matters to Catholics. Jesus Christ, God almighty. And it is because He used the Septuagint, that the Catholic Church has always honored those books.

Clearly you and the Cardinal would disagree,

I doubt it. The Cardinal was a good Catholic. As such, he would have fallen in line to Catholic Teaching the way that St. Jerome did before him.

and the historical realties may account for this IE.. 1. the chuch in rome is telling you x and you believe them, but you could be in error by doing so.

On the contrary, the Scripture says:

Proverbs 3:5-6 Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.

And again:
Ephesians 3:10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,

Thus, since Scripture tells me to be wary of my own understanding and that I can rely completely upon the Teaching of the Church, that is the action that I take. I rely completely upon the Church that Jesus Christ established. And that is historically proven to be the Catholic Church.

2. You could say that the Cardinal here is in error possible I agree historically unlikely.

On the contrary, the Cardinal is goes against the historical Teaching of the Catholic Church and that is proven.

What do you attribute this disconnect? Do you have any objective historical data to base it on.

Sure do. I already provided the documents of the infallible Council of Florence. Here is the quote from St. Jerome to show that he changed his mind about the deuterocanon. In fact, in this explanation, St. Jerome does not say that he changed his mind, but that anti-Catholics misunderstood his explanation.

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. St. Jerome, Apology against Rufinus, Book 2:33, 402 AD, Schaff, NPNF 2, Vol. 3, p. 517.

Remember it is an historical question, not a question of the validity of what the church of rome teaches about itself.

Both are on the Church's side. Her testimony and Teachings are the standard of orthodoxy. Her testimony and Teachings are the historical Teachings of Christianity.

May we all remain, in Him,

De Maria

 

[bbbbbbb]

You too, Bill.

What do you mean by that? The Council of Florence was an ecumenical Council which infallibly defined the inspired books of the Bible.

Look up the Council of Florence. It is an ecumenical Council. Thus, the definitions of that Council, are infallible.

1. St. Jerome was also a Bishop. He does not pass the requirements for infallible Teaching.
2. St. Jerome changed his mind about the deuterocanon. The proof is that he included the deuterocanon in his Bible, the Latin Vulgate.

Ask away. The fact is you've got your facts twisted. The historical fact is that the deuterocanon were always considered inspired books by the one entity that matters to Catholics. Jesus Christ, God almighty. And it is because He used the Septuagint, that the Catholic Church has always honored those books.

I doubt it. The Cardinal was a good Catholic. As such, he would have fallen in line to Catholic Teaching the way that St. Jerome did before him.

On the contrary, the Scripture says:

Proverbs 3:5-6 Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.

And again:
Ephesians 3:10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,

Thus, since Scripture tells me to be wary of my own understanding and that I can rely completely upon the Teaching of the Church, that is the action that I take. I rely completely upon the Church that Jesus Christ established. And that is historically proven to be the Catholic Church.

On the contrary, the Cardinal is goes against the historical Teaching of the Catholic Church and that is proven.

Sure do. I already provided the documents of the infallible Council of Florence. Here is the quote from St. Jerome to show that he changed his mind about the deuterocanon. In fact, in this explanation, St. Jerome does not say that he changed his mind, but that anti-Catholics misunderstood his explanation.

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. St. Jerome, Apology against Rufinus, Book 2:33, 402 AD, Schaff, NPNF 2, Vol. 3, p. 517.

Both are on the Church's side. Her testimony and Teachings are the standard of orthodoxy. Her testimony and Teachings are the historical Teachings of Christianity.

May we all remain, in Him,

De Maria

The Council of Florence accomplished exactly nothing, other than to provide a footnote in Catholic history which is conveniently used to bash Orthodox Christians and other non-Catholics. Council of Florence - Wikipedia

 

[BBAS 64]

You too, Bill.

What do you mean by that? The Council of Florence was an ecumenical Council which infallibly defined the inspired books of the Bible.

Look up the Council of Florence. It is an ecumenical Council. Thus, the definitions of that Council, are infallible.

1. St. Jerome was also a Bishop. He does not pass the requirements for infallible Teaching.
2. St. Jerome changed his mind about the deuterocanon. The proof is that he included the deuterocanon in his Bible, the Latin Vulgate.



Ask away. The fact is you've got your facts twisted. The historical fact is that the deuterocanon were always considered inspired books by the one entity that matters to Catholics. Jesus Christ, God almighty. And it is because He used the Septuagint, that the Catholic Church has always honored those books.



I doubt it. The Cardinal was a good Catholic. As such, he would have fallen in line to Catholic Teaching the way that St. Jerome did before him.



On the contrary, the Scripture says:

Proverbs 3:5-6 Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.

And again:
Ephesians 3:10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,

Thus, since Scripture tells me to be wary of my own understanding and that I can rely completely upon the Teaching of the Church, that is the action that I take. I rely completely upon the Church that Jesus Christ established. And that is historically proven to be the Catholic Church.



On the contrary, the Cardinal is goes against the historical Teaching of the Catholic Church and that is proven.



Sure do. I already provided the documents of the infallible Council of Florence. Here is the quote from St. Jerome to show that he changed his mind about the deuterocanon. In fact, in this explanation, St. Jerome does not say that he changed his mind, but that anti-Catholics misunderstood his explanation.

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. St. Jerome, Apology against Rufinus, Book 2:33, 402 AD, Schaff, NPNF 2, Vol. 3, p. 517.



Both are on the Church's side. Her testimony and Teachings are the standard of orthodoxy. Her testimony and Teachings are the historical Teachings of Christianity.

May we all remain, in Him,

De Maria

Good day, De_Maria

This thread is a continuation of another thread so I am sorry to be short.

Historically Jerome gives us the view of the church.. historically it is consistent:


Our analysis has shown that the vast weight of historical evidence falls on the side of excluding the Apocrypha from the category of canonical Scripture. It is interesting to note that the only two Fathers of the early Church who are considered to be true biblical scholars, Jerome and Origen (and who both spent time in the area of Palestine and were therefore familiar with the Hebrew canon), rejected the Apocrypha. And the near unanimous opinion of the Church followed this view. And coupled with this historical evidence is the fact that these writings have serious internal difficulties in that they are characterized by heresies, inconsistencies and historical inaccuracies which invalidate their being given the status of Scripture. New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. I (Washington D.C.: Catholic University, 1967), p. 390.

It is clear that you and Cardinal view councils and even Jerome a bit differently... please do understand historically I find him a bit more convincing than you. I understand you currently disagree with him, but I find nothing challenging his views on this issue at the time the Gloss was published. If you have any thing I would be happy to review it.

In Him,

Bill