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."
Such is the difficulty of not having editors, or the ability to fix a post once you've made it: I'm sure there must be some honest discussion of the canon out there, somewhere.
Also of note: if you read “But it is better to decide to displease the opinions of the Pharisees and to be subject to the commands of bishops” as merely saying that the bishops said it was the canon, but it was not, then you’ve established that St. Jerome is denying sola scriptura by this statement.
There are ample reasons for rejecting the Apocrypha. Jerome giving in to the bishops is not surprising nor convincing. It is a pity to once again see Catholics attacking Protestants.
FWIW, I do not base my rejection of priests, transubstantiation, indulgences, purgatory or the Pope on anything found in the Apocrypha. Also, remember Jerome’s Apocrypha was larger than your deuterocanonicals...
You’ll note, however, that among Jerome’s reasons for including the “apocrypha” into the canon is his assertion that the Catholic (and Orthodox, since they were in union at the time) had made the complete canon a matter of dogma twelve centuries before Luther. In other words, the claim that the Council of Trent ‘added’ the ‘apocrypha’ is a ludicrous lie.
And yes, Martin Luther only moved to remove the apocrypha after the Council of Worms showed him his precious heresies were explicitly refuted in the apocrypha. Lost to most Protestants’ knowledge of history, however, is that in order to remove these Catholic doctrines from the Bible, Luther also got rid of seven New Testament books.
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/06/guest-blogdid-jerome-change-his-mind.html
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2008/02/semi-authoritative-catholic-canon.html
“Lost to most Protestants’ knowledge of history, however, is that in order to remove these Catholic doctrines from the Bible, Luther also got rid of seven New Testament books.”
That is a breathtakingly inaccurate statement. Luther eliminated NONE of the New Testament. Nor does the Apocrypha refute anything. Indeed, as Jerome was inclined to point out, it taught nothing useful, either.
Please try to learn some history before posting false statements.
Ping for later
Thanks for making my point about the intellectual dishonesty of Protestant apologists. Even in discussions about Jerome apparently changing his mind about the canon, there is no mention of the prefaces to Judith and to Tobit. None! How is that possible?
Also, you add another half history in the second post. It is true that the Council deferred over the objections of Cardinal Cajetan on the doctrinal authoritativeness of the deuterocanonical books. But they deferred for reasons your source does not present, and, in fact, misleads on.
The final verdict of the Council of Trent found Seven books were absolutely required for doctrine, and anathematized anyone who found otherwise. The tricky cases were those of the third Book of Maccabees, and the Greek Book of Esdras. These books had NOT been consistently regarded as scriptural throughout history, but many Christian communities, including among the Orthodox and Oriental churches, did include them in their bibles. The Council concluded that the third Book of Maccabees, although read in some masses by some Christian communities, was not used historically to establish any doctrine; while the Council declined to denounce their ecclesiastical use, it found no reason to include it in their list of books which all Christians were obliged to defend as scriptural. Similarly, Greek Esdras, being little other than a condensation of Esra and Nehemiah into a single work, was found to be in no way objectionable, but not necessary.
(Some people also mistakenly believe that there was controversy over a “Letter of Jeremiah,” since this is found in Protestant bibles which include the “apocrypha.” In fact, Catholics regard the Letter of Jeremiah as part of the Book of Baruch, and did include it in their bibles; some Oriental and Orthodox churches treat it as a separate work, since the Letter is about Baruch, not by him.)
>> That is a breathtakingly inaccurate statement. Luther eliminated NONE of the New Testament. <<
Luther condemned the Books of Revelation (as being contrary to his notion of a loving God), James (as an epistle of straw which directly contradicts Sola Fide), 2 and 3 John, 1 and 2 Peter and Hebrews (as “an obvious forgery”) They were replaced only after the influence of the Calvinists and Anglicans began to be felt by the Lutherans.
>> Nor does the Apocrypha refute anything. <<
I’m so curious how you believe this doesn’t contradict the Protestant insistence that alms or prayers for the dead is useless or even idolatrous:
38 After the battle Judas led his men to the town of Adullam. It was the day before the Sabbath, so they purified themselves according to Jewish custom and then observed the holy day. 39 By the following day it was urgent that they gather up the bodies of the men who had been killed in battle and bury them in their family tombs. 40 But on each of the dead, hidden under their clothes, they found small images of the gods worshiped in Jamnia, which the Law forbids Jews to wear. Everyone then knew why these men had been killed. 41 So they praised the ways of the Lord, the just judge, who reveals what is hidden, 42 and they begged him that this sin might be completely blotted out. Then, Judas, that great man, urged the people to keep away from sin, because they had seen for themselves what had happened to those men who had sinned. 43 He also took up a collection from all his men, totaling about four pounds of silver, and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering. Judas did this noble thing because he believed in the resurrection of the dead. 44 If he had not believed that the dead would be raised, it would have been foolish and useless to pray for them. 45 In his firm and devout conviction that all of God’s faithful people would receive a wonderful reward, Judas made provision for a sin offering to set free from their sin those who had died.
Your source makes a distinction between “removing” books from the bible, and deeming them non-canonical. Yes, I’ll concede that Luther continued to publish them in the same volume as the rest of the bible... in exactly the same manner as which he published the Old Testament deuterocanonicals. Since I also described this practice as “removing” in the case of the Old Testament deuterocanonicals, any attempt to quibble with my description regarding the New Testament deuterocanonicals is semantical nonsense: the only point is that Luther vehemently claimed that they were not sacred scripture. And as to the assertion that Luther regarded them as beneficial to be read, one must also read the vehemence which he objected to them; if they lead one to soul-destroying doctrinal error, how can they be beneficial? Luther is merely trying to have it both ways as he described Jerome doing, but since he held opinions he could never attribute to Jerome, doing so was merely talking out of both sides of his mouth, as he was very prone to do. (Read him in reference to antinomianism, or his ecclesiology with reference to the Peasant’s Massacre.)
ping
The Council of Trent punted on the use of the Apocrypha for doctrine.
“This question was not only a matter of controversy between Catholics and Protestants: it was also the subject of a lively discussion even between Catholic theologians. St Jerome, that great authority in all scriptural questions, had accepted the Jewish canon of the Old Testament. Thc books of Judith, Esther, Tobias, Machabees, Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, which the majority of the Fathers, on the authority of the Septuagint, treated as canonical, Jerome described as apocryphal, that is, as not included in the canon though suitable for the edification of the faithful…The general of the Franciscans Observant, Calvus, dealt thoroughly with the problems raised by Cajetan in a tract drawn up for the purposes of the Counci1. He defended the wider canon, and in particular the canonicity of the book of Baruch, the story of Susanna, that of Bel and the dragon, and the canticle of the three children (Benedicite). On the other hand, he refused to accept the oft-quoted Apostolic Canons as authoritative for the canonicity of the third book of Machabees. The general of the Augustinians, Seripando, on the contrary, was in sympathy with Erasmus and Cajetan and sought to harmonise their views with the Florentine decree on the ground that the protocanonical books of the Old Testament, as "canonical and authentic", belong the the canon fidei, while the deuterocanonical ones, as "canonical and ecclesiastical books", belong to the canon morum. Seripando, accordingly, follows the tendency which had made itself felt elsewhere also in pre-Tridentine Catholic theology, which was not to withhold the epithet "canonical" from the deuterocanonical books, yet to use it with certain restrictions.
The tracts of the two generals of Orders show that opinions diverged widely even within the Council. The prestige of the Augustinian general and that of the Bishop of Fano who sided with him, may have prompted Cervini to discuss the whole complex question in his class. It became evident that no one supported the subtle distinction between a canon fidei and a canon morum, though it met with a somewhat more favourable reception in the general congregation of 12 February when several of the Fathers deemed it useful, though not necessary. The majority agreed with the opinion of the general of the Servites, that controverted theological questions, which had already been the subject of discussion between Augustine and Jerome, should not be decided by the Council but should be allowed to remain open questions. The result of the above-mentioned vote of the general congregation of 15 February committed the Council to the wider canon, but inasmuch as it abstained from a theological discussion, the question of differences between books within the canon was left as it had been.”
History of the Council of Trent, pgs 56-57
Do you know of any Protestant denomination that rejects any of the books of the New Testament? Whatever Luther’s feelings were, and they were NOT as opposed to certain books as you make out - he was writing as a scholar and not as a Pope. he included ALL the New Testament, and all the New Testament is accepted by every Protestant denomination I know of.
For example, Luther wrote this on Hebrews:
““[I]t is still a marvelously fine epistle. It discusses Christ’s priesthood masterfully and profoundly on the basis of the Scriptures and extensively interprets the Old Testament in a fine way, Thus it is plain that this is the work of an able and learned man; as a disciple of the apostles he had learned much from them and was greatly experienced in faith and practiced in the Scriptures. And although, as he himself testifies in chapter 6[:1], he does not lay the foundation of faith—that is the work of the apostles—nevertheless he does build well on it with gold, silver, precious stones, as St. Paul says in I Corinthians 3[:12]. Therefore we should not be deterred if wood, straw, or hay are perhaps mixed with them, but accept this fine teaching with all honor; though, to be sure, we cannot put it on the same level with the apostolic epistles.”[109]”
He also preached from it regularly.
The Council of Trent set the Canon of the Bible in stone, never to be added to or subtracted from ever again. Sorry you don’t believe the truth.
for Catholics
My, my...Catholics can be a hoot!
The problem with this article is what every single Catholic constantly tells every single Protestant on this board. It doesn’t matter what one father might have stated or felt. It is what the magisterium has agreed to as to what is infallible and inerrant.
The Church formalized what was infallible and inerrant. Are you saying they were wrong in their first selection? You seem to be indicating Jerome thought so.
Well, if at first you don't succeed try, try again.
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.