Pope Gregory the Great (604 AD) in quoting a passage from 1 Maccabees says:
"We adduce a testimony from books, though not canonical, yet published for the edification of the Church." Source
"Even in the sixteenth century, shortly before the assembling of the Council of Trent, Cardinal Ximenes, Archbishop of Toledo in Spain, in the preface to his Complutensian Polyglott, dedicated to Pope Leo X., and approved by him, states that the books of the Old Testament there printed in Greek only, viz., Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, and the Maccabees, with the additions to Esther and Daniel, were not in the canon, but were received by the Church rather for the edification of the people than for confirming the authority of ecclesiastical doctrines." Source
"they are not in the canon; and that the Church readeth them rather for edification of the people than to confirm any doubtful points of doctrine; and that, therefore, they are not canonical." Cardinal Ximenes
16 comments:
The area I want to get into is the point being made by Catholic apologist Gary Michuta that Jerome was wrong on the apocrypha, and many in the church simply followed his wrong opinion.
The material is found in his new book, but you can also listen to his recent Journey Home interview to hear an overview of his position:
http://www.ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/seriessearchprog.asp?seriesID=-6892289
I would think Gary would simply dismiss any negative opinion on the apocrypha after Jerome. The question to ask is, is this a valid way to do history?
I probably won't have time to get to it, but it is the most recent argument from the Catholic apologist crowd.
The problem I see is that once you decide to join Holy Mother Church, you are required to defend Holy Mother Church which allows for no objectivity and also often leads to a lack of integrity. No matter what the discussion, Holy Mother Church is in the right.
Dismissing all opinions post-Jerome as tainted by Jerome sounds like an unprovable hypothesis from both sides. How can anyone prove that Gregory the Great’s opinion was or wasn’t based on Jerome’s? But since the hypothesis belongs to Gary the onus is on him to prove it. Otherwise it is just a punt.
Anyway, thanks for sharing that. There are some great older resources out there that I hope to look at, but my time is so limited right now I don’t know when that will happen. But I will try to focus in more on pre- and contemporary Jerome opinion.
Carrie,
Quick easy question:
From Carthage to Trent, was there ever a bible published that didn't have the OT deuterocanons it?
John
From Carthage to Trent, was there ever a bible published that didn't have the OT deuterocanons it?
According to the Jerome Bible Commentary (written by Catholic Scholars):
"Catholic editions of the Bible published in Germany and in France in 1527 and 1530 contained only the protocanonical books."
Carrie,
Sorry, I misstated my question.
Between Carthage and Luther (~1520), were there any bibles published without the OT deuterocanons?
and
Catholic editions of the Bible published in Germany and in France in 1527 and 1530 contained only the protocanonical books.
Is this above quote only referring to the OT protocanonical or OT and NT protocanonical books? (ie. did they also toss out the NT deuteros of John II/III, Peter II, James, Jude, Rev, Hebrews)?
Between Carthage and Luther (~1520), were there any bibles published without the OT deuterocanons?
I guess that depends on your definition of “without”.
In the past you have accused Luther of “throwing out 7 books of the Bible” and even numbered the books in his bible as less than the Catholic versions. And yet, Luther included the deuteros in his Bible but declared in their prefaces his doubt about their canonicity. Since Jerome also stated his opposition to the deuteros in his prefaces in the Vulgate, then I can make the argument that the deuteros were not officially part of the Vulgate. The Complutensian Polyglott also “threw out” the deuteros in your claimed Luther fashion.
Why don’t you tell me how many bibles, other than the Vulgate, were published during that period with the deuterocanon (and without prefaces questioning them).
Is this above quote only referring to the OT protocanonical or OT and NT protocanonical books?
The quote is in reference to the deuterocanon.
Carrie,
John: Between Carthage and Luther (~1520), were there any bibles published without the OT deuterocanons?
Carrie: I guess that depends on your definition of “without”.
My deffinition of a bible published "without" the OT deuteros would be a bible that indexs them in the back of the book or expressly states they are not to be considered inspired.
In the past you have accused Luther of “throwing out 7 books of the Bible” and even numbered the books in his bible as less than the Catholic versions. And yet, Luther included the deuteros in his Bible but declared in their prefaces his doubt about their canonicity.
Sure, they were included in the bible (ie in the same book) but not as scripture. According to him, these books were still not scriptural. Even the 1611 KJV had the OT deuteros in the back.
Since Jerome also stated his opposition to the deuteros in his prefaces in the Vulgate, then I can make the argument that the deuteros were not officially part of the Vulgate.
Havn't we been over this before? Jerome recanted in about 402 AD.
Why don’t you tell me how many bibles, other than the Vulgate, were published during that period with the deuterocanon (and without prefaces questioning them).
All the evidence I have seen points to the fact that they (bibles between Vulgate and Luther) were never indexed or listed as non-canonical in any bible.
John: Is this above quote only referring to the OT protocanonical or OT and NT protocanonical books?
Carrie:The quote is in reference to the deuterocanon.
Ok, so then it tossed out the OT and NT deuterocanon? It indexed 7 OT and indexed 7 NT.
Havn't we been over this before? Jerome recanted in about 402 AD.
Wrong!:
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/06/guest-blogdid-jerome-change-his-mind.html
Even Mark Shea admitted this “Jerome recanted” is a myth:
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/06/response-from-catholic-apologist-mark.html
Lastly, the definition of” deuterocanonicals”:
“The Deuterocanonical books of the Bible are books considered by the Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Christianity to be canonical parts of the Christian Old Testament but are not present in the Hebrew Bible, which is often described as protocanonical.” (wiki).
The term was coined by an RC so I expected you to be familiar with it.
Carrie,
I find it interesting that you referenced that wikipedia article on the deutero canon. ?????Did you know that the website you sent me to acknowledges that Jerome did in fact later support the deuteros????!!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterocanonical_books
In his reply to Rufinus, he stoutly defended the deuterocanonical portions of Daniel even though the Jews of his day did not:
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 Song of the Three Children, and the story of Bel and the Dragon, which are not found in the Hebrew volume, proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. For I was not relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they [the Jews] are wont to make against us. (Against Rufinus, 11:33 [AD 402]).
Thus Jerome acknowledged the principle by which the canon was settled—the judgment of the Church, rather than his own judgment or the judgment of Jews.
As for Shea, I will speak to him when he gets here in Colorado Springs later this month.
In the mean time, I will still hold to the CUF, Envoy articles:
http://www.laywitness.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=28
http://www.envoymagazine.com/backissues/1.2/marapril_story2.html (by Shea)
plus various other sources.
Carrie,
I do thank you for the info from Swan etc. If I have been mis-informed on Jerome and Luther, I would like to stand corrected. I hope to continue more research on this.
John
It is not a surprise that Wiki is wrong about something.
The articles on Swan's blog deal with your Jerome myth. You would do well to also read through his archive on Luther, since 90% of what you say about Luther here appears to be incorrect.
Mark Shea said:
"In this case, for instance, from what I read of the critique of my article on the apocrypha in the materials forwarded me, it would appear that I did indeed misread Jerome (not wilfully, as the article suggests, but nonetheless erroneously). That is, it would appear that Jerome, although he did include the deuterocanon in his Vulgate, did so grudgingly and never really bought the idea they should be in the canon of Scripture. That's the breaks. I make mistakes."
BTW John,
I see alot of the same old previously debunked myths from Catholics floating around online. You may want to search around a bit before you pass off something you have read from a Catholic "apologist" website.
Carrie,
Thanks for the guidance on these issues. My wife and I were up last night discussing some of the anger and frustrations I have with this issue of potential poor scholarship. I am weighing my options of calling Catholic Answers today with Karl Keating on Open Line, writting a letter to a number of apologist or both. If error has been made, a public statement needs to be proclaimed (ie and Envoy Mag article on errant Luther statements).
You may want to search around a bit before you pass off something you have read from a Catholic "apologist" website.
FYI, one of the most anti-Luther presentations I have heard in recent times was given in my men's ecumenical diologue group by a staunch Reformed guy. He spent a few weeks preparing for the talk, and he portrayed Luther as a Meglomaniac with severe anxiety issues. This guy can and does quote the Reformed Confessions and Calvin on a regular basis.
John
John,
I wasn't trying to be harsh in my comment. I have had the same difficulties.
I LOVE that there is so much information available online, but unfortunately, there is alot of erroneous or sometimes just old information that can be misleading. That is why I now try to look up original sources before believing what I read.
I highly recommend James Swan's site. His scholarship (and that of most of his commenters) is top notch. You may not agree with his Protestant beliefs, but I think you will appreciate his attention to details and facts.
As far as Luther, I am not all that surprised by what you have heard. But after reading much of Swan's Luther material (from original sources) it appears that most of the negative Luther material is incorrect.
I appreciate that you want the truth in even these smaller matters rather than just sticking with "your side".
Carrie,
(I have been out of town)
I appreciate that you want the truth in even these smaller matters rather than just sticking with "your side".
No problem. I was discussing this issue with Mike, the sales guy (ex-methodist) at the local aquinasandmore.com headquarters. I expressed what Swan said: that we should be judging Luther's doctrines by his personally published works vs. a quote from a non-primary source. Mike agreed.
John
Post a Comment