Why study of the fathers leads only to Catholicism and why I came Home to RCC

[thecolorsblend]

Good day,

As noted here:

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.

They were able to "resolved for Catholics any doubts and uncertainties" seeing that I am not Roman Catholic I never had any of those concerns nor do I find the reasoning used very compelling. The historical error made at Trent is clear and can not be denied by any clear thinking person they would have been better of to stick to the historical realities. Do not misunderstand they do have the right to define that which their church believes, I would never say that they do not but seeing I am not a member it is moot.

Maybe if the council of 1442 had the ability to speak clearly on the matter then things may have been different for the roman church.

"Based on a time-honoured tradition, the Councils of Florence in 1442 and Trent in 1564 resolved for Catholics any doubts and uncertainties. Their list comprises 73 books, which were accepted as sacred and canonical because they were inspired by the Holy Spirit, 46 for the Old Testament, 27 for the New.36 In this way the Catholic Church received its definitive canon. To determine this canon, it based itself on the Church's constant usage. In adopting this canon, which is larger than the Hebrew, it has preserved an authentic memory of Christian origins, since, as we have seen, the more restricted Hebrew canon is later than the formation of the New Testament."


19. To the Jewish Scriptures which it received as the authentic Word of God, the Christian Church added other Scriptures expressing its faith in Jesus, the Christ. It follows then that the Christian Bible is not composed of one “Testament”, but two “Testaments”, the Old and the New, which have complex, dialectical relationships between them. A study of these relationships is indispensable for anyone who wishes to have a proper appreciation of the links between the Christian Church and the Jewish people. The understanding of these relationships has changed over time. The present chapter offers firstly an overview of these changes, followed by a more detailed study of the basic themes common to both Testaments.




The Jewish People and their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible


In Him,

Bill

As a rebuttal, here's a point by point explanation for the Catholic canon, which also addresses the Church Fathers you mention:
How to Defend the Deuterocanonicals | Catholic Answers

 

[BBAS 64]

As a rebuttal, here's a point by point explanation for the Catholic canon, which also addresses the Church Fathers you mention:
How to Defend the Deuterocanonicals | Catholic Answers

Good Day,

LOL... a roman church apologist site Staples... Madrid.. did that have the t shirt and the coffee cup.

Thanks, sorry you are unable to aquatically address the issues in a historical and straight forward manner, much like the site you provided.

In Him,

Bill

 

[tz620q]

Good Day, TZ

I will allow the writing of the Roman church stand on their own... let the reader read...

You assume for your self that councils decisions hold any validity on the issue I would refer you to Jerome on that issue for the historical view of the 7 books that were removed. I agree it was done in haste as a reflecx to the errors of the roman chuch at Trent ... but my `1611 KJV has them as does some other printing of scripture that I have I find them useful in the correct historical ways as noted by Jerome.

Assuming that you attest to the decisions made at Nicea, then it seems that some councils are OK with you and others are not. By what criteria would you accept some and reject others?

Also several times you have referred to the "errors of Trent" without defining what you thought those errors are and why you think that.

Jerome's preface to the books of Solomon

As the Church reads the books of Judith and Tobit and Maccabees but does not receive them among the canonical Scriptures, so also it reads Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus for the edification of the people, not for the authoritative confirmation of doctrine."

Also it depends on your use of the word Canon as being the objective correct usage, I know you think it is .... that documented history is quite "muddy"....

In Him,

Bill

Jerome was a complicated man, more of an academic than a theologian. It seems he was fluent in Greek, which was why he was chosen for this first large work of translation. Because he did not know Hebrew, he was sent to Palestine to learn from the Jews their language and to find any old manuscripts of the Jewish works to help in his translation. While in Alexandria on the way, he completed a Greek to Latin translation of the Bible. I would assume that he used Septuagint manuscripts for this. He did not express any reservations at this time about the canonicity of what would become known as the deuterocanonical books. After 30 years in Palestine, he completed his translation of the OT from Hebrew to Latin. At that time, he seems to express misgivings about the canonicity of these books; but left them in his Vulgate due to being influenced by the Pope. Later after leaving Palestine, he quoted from these books as if they were inspired scripture in later letters and commentaries. So it seems he was a man easily influenced by the thoughts of those around him. I take him for what he was, a brilliant linguist that spent his life in creating the first complete translation of the full Bible into the common language of that time. He went into this job though with guidelines for what to translate and what he did not have to do. Reticence on his part does not remove the fact that to translate with reluctance implies he was under obligation to translate them.

 

[BBAS 64]

Assuming that you attest to the decisions made at Nicea, then it seems that some councils are OK with you and others are not. By what criteria would you accept some and reject others?

Also several times you have referred to the "errors of Trent" without defining what you thought those errors are and why you think that.


Jerome was a complicated man, more of an academic than a theologian. It seems he was fluent in Greek, which was why he was chosen for this first large work of translation. Because he did not know Hebrew, he was sent to Palestine to learn from the Jews their language and to find any old manuscripts of the Jewish works to help in his translation. While in Alexandria on the way, he completed a Greek to Latin translation of the Bible. I would assume that he used Septuagint manuscripts for this. He did not express any reservations at this time about the canonicity of what would become known as the deuterocanonical books. After 30 years in Palestine, he completed his translation of the OT from Hebrew to Latin. At that time, he seems to express misgivings about the canonicity of these books; but left them in his Vulgate due to being influenced by the Pope. Later after leaving Palestine, he quoted from these books as if they were inspired scripture in later letters and commentaries. So it seems he was a man easily influenced by the thoughts of those around him. I take him for what he was, a brilliant linguist that spent his life in creating the first complete translation of the full Bible into the common language of that time. He went into this job though with guidelines for what to translate and what he did not have to do. Reticence on his part does not remove the fact that to translate with reluctance implies he was under obligation to translate them.

Good Day,

You are in error Jerome was the preeminent Hebrew Scholar of his day...I am not sure where you got your information.. He used only Hebrew text for the canon of the OT that he translated to Latin. You are confusing him with Augustine who knew no Hebrew , and deferred to Jerome on the issue as he only knew Greek. There are a series of letter between them that has that content.

Much of what you have here woefully inaccurate due to your first error on Jerome.

Can I have the link to these assereted guidelines ... I have never heard such a assertion made so primary source please, these assertions you make may have no factual basis.

did you read:

As the Church reads the books of Judith and Tobit and Maccabees but does not receive them among the canonical Scriptures

He is giving you the direct view of the Church, you can see it as factual history, unless you would like to say he lied. But then know I will be asking you to prove that assertion as well.

Edited to add...


As to Nicea I have read the council, and do not see the subject of Canon addressed at all. Nicea in it's rulings were biblical in all that they addressed, you vainly demand a pretext of a council, but historically Scripture is sufficient above all things... that works for me.

Athanasius (297-373): Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith’s sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrine so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture


Thanks,

In Him,

Bill

 

[thecolorsblend]

Good Day,

LOL... a roman church apologist site Staples... Madrid.. did that have the t shirt and the coffee cup.

Thanks, sorry you are unable to aquatically address the issues in a historical and straight forward manner, much like the site you provided.

In Him,

Bill

I could write a detailed reply... but that's harder to do on my phone during free moments at work. But that article says everything I would've said, and probably better than I could say it. Thus that is my reply to you.

 

[BBAS 64]

Good Day,

You are in error Jerome was the preeminent Hebrew Scholar of his day...I am not sure where you got your information.. He used only Hebrew text for the canon of the OT that he translated to Latin. You are confusing him with Augustine who knew no Hebrew , and deferred to Jerome on the issue as he only knew Greek. There are a series of letter between them that has that content.

Much of what you have here woefully inaccurate due to your first error on Jerome.

Can I have the link to these assereted guidelines ... I have never heard such a assertion made so primary source please, these assertions you make may have no factual basis.

did you read:

As the Church reads the books of Judith and Tobit and Maccabees but does not receive them among the canonical Scriptures

He is giving you the direct view of the Church, you can see it as factual history, unless you would like to say he lied. But then know I will be asking you to prove that assertion as well.


Edited to add...


As to Nicea I have read the council, and do not see the subject of Canon addressed at all. Nicea in it's rulings were biblical in all that they addressed, you vainly demand a pretext of a council, but historically Scripture is sufficient above all things... that works for me.

Athanasius (297-373): Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith’s sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrine so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture

Thanks,

In Him,

Bill

 

[tz620q]

Good Day,

You are in error Jerome was the preeminent Hebrew Scholar of his day...I am not sure where you got your information.. He used only Hebrew text for the canon of the OT that he translated to Latin. You are confusing him with Augustine who knew no Hebrew , and deferred to Jerome on the issue as he only knew Greek. There are a series of letter between them that has that content.

Much of what you have here woefully inaccurate due to your first error on Jerome.

Can I have the link to these assereted guidelines ... I have never heard such a assertion made so primary source please, these assertions you make may have no factual basis.

did you read:

As the Church reads the books of Judith and Tobit and Maccabees but does not receive them among the canonical Scriptures

He is giving you the direct view of the Church, you can see it as factual history, unless you would like to say he lied. But then know I will be asking you to prove that assertion as well.

Thanks,

In Him,

Bill

Though I doubt if the Rabbis would allow you your first assertion about Jerome being the preeminent Hebrew Scholar of his day, I will acknowledge that he did become the Latin Church's preeminent Hebrew scholar. This was later in his life. I was wrong on one count. He did know a little Hebrew when chosen to translate the Bible due to a previous trip to Antioch and the surrounding area. I am at work, so I cannot reference anything more handy than Wiki.

Jerome - Wikipedia

"Jerome was a scholar at a time when that statement implied a fluency in Greek. He knew some Hebrew when he started his translation project, but moved to Jerusalem to strengthen his grip on Jewish scripture commentary. A wealthy Roman aristocrat, Paula, funded his stay in a monastery in Bethlehem and he completed his translation there. He began in 382 by correcting the existing Latin language version of the New Testament, commonly referred to as the Vetus Latina. By 390 he turned to translating the Hebrew Bible from the original Hebrew, having previously translated portions from the Septuagint which came from Alexandria. "

As far as my assertions about his later having a more favorable view of the contested books, in his letter to his friend Eustochium in 404 A.D. he quotes Sirach 13:2 and says,
CHURCH FATHERS: Letter 108 (Jerome)
"I relate this story not because I approve of persons rashly taking upon themselves burthens beyond their strength (for does not the scripture say: Burden not yourself above your power?"

Also from Jerome's Apology Book II
Nicene and Post-nicene Fathers: Second Series
"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.”

 

[BBAS 64]

Though I doubt if the Rabbis would allow you your first assertion about Jerome being the preeminent Hebrew Scholar of his day, I will acknowledge that he did become the Latin Church's preeminent Hebrew scholar. This was later in his life. I was wrong on one count. He did know a little Hebrew when chosen to translate the Bible due to a previous trip to Antioch and the surrounding area. I am at work, so I cannot reference anything more handy than Wiki.

Jerome - Wikipedia

"Jerome was a scholar at a time when that statement implied a fluency in Greek. He knew some Hebrew when he started his translation project, but moved to Jerusalem to strengthen his grip on Jewish scripture commentary. A wealthy Roman aristocrat, Paula, funded his stay in a monastery in Bethlehem and he completed his translation there. He began in 382 by correcting the existing Latin language version of the New Testament, commonly referred to as the Vetus Latina. By 390 he turned to translating the Hebrew Bible from the original Hebrew, having previously translated portions from the Septuagint which came from Alexandria. "

As far as my assertions about his later having a more favorable view of the contested books, in his letter to his friend Eustochium in 404 A.D. he quotes Sirach 13:2 and says,
CHURCH FATHERS: Letter 108 (Jerome)
"I relate this story not because I approve of persons rashly taking upon themselves burthens beyond their strength (for does not the scripture say: Burden not yourself above your power?"

Also from Jerome's Apology Book II
Nicene and Post-nicene Fathers: Second Series
"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.”

Good Day,

Thanks... not sure what this proves as it relates to Jerome. so lets look to a pre-trent figure in the reformation to have his views considered as at least viable pre-trent as it relates to Jerome the cannon and his view on the topic in his day. I know you may disagree with him and that is ok, but understand why I would see his view as a bit more weighty than yours historically. I mean you no disrespect.

Cardinal Cajetan, the cardinal who opposed Martin Luther at the Diet of Worms.

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.


Oh ya... btw I quote the apocrypha as well and other works as they are useful.

In Him,
Bill

 

[tz620q]

As to Nicea I have read the council, and do not see the subject of Canon addressed at all. Nicea in it's rulings were biblical in all that they addressed, you vainly demand a pretext of a council, but historically Scripture is sufficient above all things... that works for me.

The point is not whether Nicea created a canon; but that you accept Nicea because it agrees with you, not because you acknowledge it as authoritative. Likewise, because the later councils on the canon do not agree with you, you do not accept their validity. Hence you place your own opinions over church councils of hundreds of bishops. Appealing to Scripture to validate the canon of Scripture is placing your assumptions in the proof of the thesis.

 

[tz620q]

Good Day,

Thanks... not sure what this proves as it relates to Jerome.

Bill,
I do get the sense that you value the apocrypha, so maybe we are both punching strawmen. To elaborate on my previous post and maybe explain it a bit better. At the time that his friend, Pope Damasus I gave him the task to create a Latin Bible, Jerome did not think that his knowledge of Hebrew was adequate to the task, that is why he spent most of the remainder of his life in Palestine. I quoted this to submit a proof of my assertion that Jerome was known as a Greek scholar, but not a Hebrew scholar at the time of his appointment to this task.
The final two quotes and links are to show that using the Prologues to show that Jerome did not consider these books canonical, ignores his later writings that explain himself better.

 

[BBAS 64]

The point is not whether Nicea created a canon; but that you accept Nicea because it agrees with you, not because you acknowledge it as authoritative. Likewise, because the later councils on the canon do not agree with you, you do not accept their validity. Hence you place your own opinions over church councils of hundreds of bishops. Appealing to Scripture to validate the canon of Scripture is placing your assumptions in the proof of the thesis.

good Day,

Just to be clear Nicea was biblical.... council are not authoritative correct. an appeal to the majority (hundreds of Bishops) does not right nor truth make (fallacy). appealing to scripture to create a canon, do tell where did I do that... That would be circular indeed... sort of like the roman church name it claim it.

You need an authority to speak to you on all matters that concern faith... and we are that authority just ask us and if we say it enough you will believe us ... we will telll you we are infallible in much of that subject matter even when we have no idea of what we are talking about....

Ludwig Ott, while commenting on Pius IX’s papal bull Ineffabilis that defined the dogma of the immaculate conception of Mary, wrote: “The Bull does not give any authentic explanation of the passage [i.e. Gen. 3:15]. It must be observed that the infallibility of the Papal doctrinal decision extends only to the dogma as such and not to the reasons given as leading up to the dogma.” Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, ed. James Canon Bastible (Rockford: Tan Books and Publishers, Inc., reprinted 1974), p. 200.

Raymond E. Brown: Roman Catholics who appeal explicitly to Spirit-guided church teaching are often unaware that their church has seldom if ever definitively pronounced on the literal meaning of a passage of Scripture, i.e., what the author meant when he wrote it. Most often the church has commented on the on-going meaning of Scripture by resisting the claims of those who would reject established practices or beliefs as unbiblical. Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament (New York: Doubleday, 1997), p. 31.


When you can not understand the premise, the conclusion are faulty (garbage in and garbage out).



In Him,

Bill

 

[BBAS 64]

Bill,
I do get the sense that you value the apocrypha, so maybe we are both punching strawmen. To elaborate on my previous post and maybe explain it a bit better. At the time that his friend, Pope Damasus I gave him the task to create a Latin Bible, Jerome did not think that his knowledge of Hebrew was adequate to the task, that is why he spent most of the remainder of his life in Palestine. I quoted this to submit a proof of my assertion that Jerome was known as a Greek scholar, but not a Hebrew scholar at the time of his appointment to this task.
The final two quotes and links are to show that using the Prologues to show that Jerome did not consider these books canonical, ignores his later writings that explain himself better.

Good Day,

Thanks for clarifying... I hate to think we are punching at Straw men, but thanks for punching with me.

Would you agree that during that time the Church had no better person for Hebrew translations than Jerome? If I recall he spent significant time in his younger days among the Jews. I do not see any thing in those that (explains better) the view Jerome records of the church in his preface books of Solomon.

As the Church reads the books of Judith and Tobit and Maccabees but does not receive them among the canonical Scriptures, so also it reads Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus for the edification of the people, not for the authoritative confirmation of doctrine."

Question .. "if" this did not clearly defines the churches view (in that day) why do you suppose Damasus allowed it to be printed as part of the Vulgate that he himself commissioned?

Why is it that Cardinal Cajetan looks to Jerome as witness to not including the apocrypha with in the canon pre-trent? I am sure you can understand the implications in him doing so.

Cardinal Cajetan,

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.



Thanks!

In Him,

Bill

 

[tz620q]

good Day,

Just to be clear Nicea was biblical.... council are not authoritative correct. an appeal to the majority (hundreds of Bishops) does not right nor truth make (fallacy). appealing to scripture to create a canon, do tell where did I do that... That would be circular indeed... sort of like the roman church name it claim it.

You need an authority to speak to you on all matters that concern faith... and we are that authority just ask us and if we say it enough you will believe us ... we will telll you we are infallible in much of that subject matter even when we have no idea of what we are talking about....

OK, I probably deserve the mocking tone for being a bit abrasive before; but truly without an authoritative canon, how can you appeal to Scripture? It would be like me trying to convince someone in England that a gallon is 4 quarts. I might have been brought up with that belief; but it is purely an arbitrary definition and their definition is different. The modern Protestant is left piecing together the opinions of Reformation era polemicists to try to defend this absolute necessity within their system.
As far as Cajetan, we have access to many pieces of scholarship today that were lost to his time. I cannot say if Cajetan had access to the letters of Jerome; but as is obvious he did have access to the Jerome Vulgate translation including the prologues. Maybe his opinion would have been different if he had read Jerome's Apology. It is really neither here nor there what a single Catholic believes, even someone as intelligent as Cajetan. We do listen to the councils as authoritative and they have spoken on this.

Ludwig Ott, while commenting on Pius IX’s papal bull Ineffabilis that defined the dogma of the immaculate conception of Mary, wrote: “The Bull does not give any authentic explanation of the passage [i.e. Gen. 3:15]. It must be observed that the infallibility of the Papal doctrinal decision extends only to the dogma as such and not to the reasons given as leading up to the dogma.” Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, ed. James Canon Bastible (Rockford: Tan Books and Publishers, Inc., reprinted 1974), p. 200.

Raymond E. Brown: Roman Catholics who appeal explicitly to Spirit-guided church teaching are often unaware that their church has seldom if ever definitively pronounced on the literal meaning of a passage of Scripture, i.e., what the author meant when he wrote it. Most often the church has commented on the on-going meaning of Scripture by resisting the claims of those who would reject established practices or beliefs as unbiblical. Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament (New York: Doubleday, 1997), p. 31.


When you can not understand the premise, the conclusion are faulty (garbage in and garbage out).



In Him,

Bill

Ott was correctly identifying that the records of the discussions that lead up to an infallible promulgation are not infallible, only the dogma as presented in the document.
You are right in that the Catholic Church does not have an authoritative interpretation of a lot of Scripture. However, I find that the way the Bible is interpreted in the Catholic Church is quite different than in most Evangelical churches. Within Catholicism, interpretation often uses as proofs a much wider group of writings than in most other churches. We appear to be much more interested in historical continuity and use other commentaries and homilies as proofs of this appeal to the past. This seems to be much less regarded in the Protestant churches and even the more mainline churches will only go back as far as their own catechisms or confessions.

 

[tz620q]

Good Day,

Thanks for clarifying... I hate to think we are punching at Straw men, but thanks for punching with me.

Would you agree that during that time the Church had no better person for Hebrew translations than Jerome?

Yes, I agree, though I see Jerome as having been influenced by his Jewish teachers.

If I recall he spent significant time in his younger days among the Jews. I do not see any thing in those that (explains better) the view Jerome records of the church in his preface books of Solomon.

As the Church reads the books of Judith and Tobit and Maccabees but does not receive them among the canonical Scriptures, so also it reads Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus for the edification of the people, not for the authoritative confirmation of doctrine."

Question .. "if" this did not clearly defines the churches view (in that day) why do you suppose Damasus allowed it to be printed as part of the Vulgate that he himself commissioned?

Damasus was dead by the time the Vulgate was finished; but I get your point. It is interesting to me as well. It is hard to say why they kept the prologues except that Jerome was revered enough that people wanted to hear his thoughts on Scripture, even if those thoughts seemed to oppose the decisions of councils that happened roughly at the same time that he was translating. Doesn't it seem strange to you though for Protestants to use Jerome's supposed opinions (though his Apology seems to refute this) as expressed in prologues to Scripture; but deny that the actual Scripture in the Vulgate is definitive. How can you accept the validity of his prologue while ignoring his canon?

 

[BBAS 64]

Yes, I agree, though I see Jerome as having been influenced by his Jewish teachers.


Damasus was dead by the time the Vulgate was finished; but I get your point. It is interesting to me as well. It is hard to say why they kept the prologues except that Jerome was revered enough that people wanted to hear his thoughts on Scripture, even if those thoughts seemed to oppose the decisions of councils that happened roughly at the same time that he was translating. Doesn't it seem strange to you though for Protestants to use Jerome's supposed opinions (though his Apology seems to refute this) as expressed in prologues to Scripture; but deny that the actual Scripture in the Vulgate is definitive. How can you accept the validity of his prologue while ignoring his canon?

Good Day,

I agree with the church's view as prescribed (historically) by Jerome... those are usefull for teaching and edification and not "canon" in the strictest terms. I do believe it was a valid view held by the church at that time he wrote it.

Again I read Jerome as giving the churches view " as the church".... it is historical commentary. Now I guess one could say he was mistaken, but based on anything I have seen he never said he misrepresented the church on that matter. I go not read an apology for the contents of the preface any where in his writings.

Thanks for the great discussion!

 

[tz620q]

Good Day,

I agree with the church's view as prescribed (historically) by Jerome... those are usefull for teaching and edification and not "canon" in the strictest terms. I do believe it was a valid view held by the church at that time he wrote it.

Again I read Jerome as giving the churches view " as the church".... it is historical commentary. Now I guess one could say he was mistaken, but based on anything I have seen he never said he misrepresented the church on that matter. I go not read an apology for the contents of the preface any where in his writings.

Thanks for the great discussion!

I quoted from his Apology Book II in post 137. It is hard to determine whether Jerome truly believed the deuterocanonical books were canonical or not. Reading his prologue, it seems pretty unambiguous; but reading his Apology seems to contradict this earlier opinion and offer a thin explanation. I am not sure his Apology is convincing. It reads like a boy that has been caught doing something he was told not to do and comes up with a quick excuse. Why would Jerome place the Jewish opinion on the deuterocanonical books in his prologue without even a passing comment that it was such. That is why I have come to the opinion that Jerome was convinced by his Jewish teachers to adopt a Hebrew only canon and denigrate the Greek part of the OT. At the same time he was supposedly at the Council of Rome in 382 when the canon was decreed (debatable; but seems likely). So he was tasked to translate them. Caught in this dilemma he translates them; but slams them in the prologue. Then to keep the wolves off his back, he denies that this is really his opinion.

 

[BBAS 64]

I quoted from his Apology Book II in post 137. It is hard to determine whether Jerome truly believed the deuterocanonical books were canonical or not. Reading his prologue, it seems pretty unambiguous; but reading his Apology seems to contradict this earlier opinion and offer a thin explanation. I am not sure his Apology is convincing. It reads like a boy that has been caught doing something he was told not to do and comes up with a quick excuse. Why would Jerome place the Jewish opinion on the deuterocanonical books in his prologue without even a passing comment that it was such. That is why I have come to the opinion that Jerome was convinced by his Jewish teachers to adopt a Hebrew only canon and denigrate the Greek part of the OT. At the same time he was supposedly at the Council of Rome in 382 when the canon was decreed (debatable; but seems likely). So he was tasked to translate them. Caught in this dilemma he translates them; but slams them in the prologue. Then to keep the wolves off his back, he denies that this is really his opinion.

I understand... make no mistake Jerome was a feisty one and had been said he would rather lose a friend then a fight. I think the history is very clear as many point to a "jeroman" canon for the contents of the OT some of that I have provided. Rome was local so it's impact would have impact to Rome alone that is my understanding of how councils work but I could be incorrect. Which council do you find authoritative on this canon issue for you as a member of the roman church?

I do not see it as a degradation at all instead a tearing of usefulness.

I have no desire to hi-jack this thread, but I have to ask... how reliable do you think his translation was?

I have always wondered what he "hacked-away" out of the text. should he have sought permissions for that? I would like your take.

THE PREFACE OF JEROME ON THE BOOK OF JUDITH
Among the Jews, the book of Judith is considered among the apocrypha; its warrant for affirming those [apocryphal 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.

Thanks,

Bill

 

[disciple1]

Seriously? You might want to finish reading the New Testament before coming to that conclusion.



Why am I not surprised?



Yeah, I can see why.

Seriously? You might want to finish reading the New Testament before coming to that conclusion.

I've studied the bible 35 years and 25 hours a day, like I said the bible has nothing good to say about pastors new or old testament.
And the pope is a sinner just like everyone else.

 

[samir]

'none of them could explain' - probably your prejudice kicking in.

the answer is simple, God works in men and women He has chosen to lead His people, and then God works in His people as well to understand and qualify the works He has given to the former.

Which men and women has God worked in to determine that the book of Revelation is scripture? There are many people claiming that the books they accept come from God so how do you know which men and women to trust? For example, do you accept the book of Mormon that Joseph Smith claimed God revealed to him?

 

[disciple1]

Disciple, then I guess you do not Obey one of the Ten Commandment of “Honor thy father and mother".
Since you, don't call your Father, Father. lol you Protestors make me laugh!

Honor thy Father and Mother: This commandment obliges the faithful to show respect for their parents — as children and adults. Children must obey their parents, and adults must respect and see to the care of their parents, when they become old and infirm.

Disciple, this goes to show that you do not understand the true meaning of Matthew 23:9

I didn't say I don't honor my father or mother, your trying to twist it, I also didn't bring up child molesters in the that type of church either so lets since you want to accuse.


Ephesians chapter 6 verse 4
Fathers, do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord.

I wasn't raised in the instruction of the lord, I didn't find God until I was 21, but I still honor my father and mother, almost everything I do in this life is done to please God.

And what about the pope being a sinner like everyone else, so what would I gain going to your church.

Proverbs chapter 10 verse 12
Love covers all wrongs.

1 Peter chapter 4 verse 8
Love covers a great many sins.

Galatians chapter 5 verse 6
The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself in love.