Catholic FAQ


Latest Threads
newest posts



Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Apologetics > Sacred Scripture
 

Welcome to Catholic Answers Forums, the largest Catholic Community on the Web.

Here you can join over 400,000 members from around the world discussing all things Catholic. Membership is open to all, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, who seek the Truth with Charity.

To gain full access, you must register for a FREE account. Registered members are able to:
  • Submit questions about the faith to experts from Catholic Answers
  • Participate in all forum discussions
  • Communicate privately with Catholics from around the world
  • Plus join a prayer group, read with the Book Club, and much more.
Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. So join our community today!

Have a question about registration or your account log-in? Just contact our Support Hotline.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search Thread Display
  #1  
Old Oct 11, '04, 2:27 pm
Sirach14 Sirach14 is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: May 28, 2004
Posts: 1,324
Default Jerome and the apocrypha

Did jerome say no to the apocrypha, as being part of the canon? Dr. Joe Mizzi says yes.

http://www.justforcatholics.org/a108.htm
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old Oct 11, '04, 2:43 pm
Scott Waddell's Avatar
Scott Waddell Scott Waddell is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: May 18, 2004
Posts: 2,301
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Jerome and the apocrypha

*Sigh* The superpopes are at it again.


The following Envoy article should help: 5 Myths about 7 Books

It is specifically myth 5 quoted here.

Quote:


Myth 5:
The early Church Fathers, such as St. Athanasius and St. Jerome (who translated the official Bible of the Catholic Church), rejected the deuterocanonical books as Scripture, and the Catholic Church added these books to the canon at the Council of Trent.


First, no Church Father is infallible. That charism is reserved uniquely to the pope, in an extraordinary sense and, in an ordinary sense, corporately to all the lawful bishops of the Catholic Church who are in full communion with the pope and are teaching definitively in an ecumenical council. Second, our understanding of doctrine develops. This means that doctrines which may not have been clearly defined sometimes get defined. A classic example of this is the doctrine of the Trinity, which wasn't defined until A.D. 325 at the Council of Nicaea, nearly 300 years after Christ's earthly ministry. In the intervening time, we can find a few Fathers writing before Nicaea who, in good faith, expressed theories about the nature of the Godhead that were rendered inadequate after Nicaea's definition. This doesn't make them heretics. It just means that Michael Jordan misses layups once in awhile. Likewise, the canon of Scripture, though it more or less assumed its present shape - which included the deuterocanonical books - by about A.D. 380, nonetheless wasn't dogmatically defined by the Church for another thousand years. In that thousand years, it was quite on the cards for believers to have some flexibility in how they regarded the canon. And this applies to the handful of Church Fathers and theologians who expressed reservations about the deuterocanon. Their private opinions about the deuterocanon were just that: private opinions.


And finally, this myth begins to disintegrate when you point out that the overwhelming majority of Church Fathers and other early Christian writers regarded the deuterocanonical books as having exactly the same inspired, scriptural status as the other Old Testament books. Just a few examples of this acceptance can be found in the Didache, The Epistle of Barnabas, the Council of Rome, the Council of Hippo, the Third Council of Carthage, the African Code, the Apostolic Constitutions, and the writings of Pope St. Clement I (Epistle to the Corinthians), St. Polycarp of Smyrna, St. Irenaeus of Lyons, St. Hippolytus, St. Cyprian of Carthage, Pope St. Damasus I, St. Augustine, and Pope St. Innocent I.


But last and most interesting of all in this stellar lineup is a certain Father already mentioned: St. Jerome. In his later years St. Jerome did indeed accept the Deuterocanonical books of the Bible. In fact, he wound up strenuously defending their status as inspired Scripture, writing, "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 Son of the Three Children, and the story of Bel and the Dragon, which are not found in the Hebrew volume (ie. canon), proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. For I wasn't relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they [the Jews] are wont to make against us" (Against Rufinus 11:33 [A.D. 402]). In earlier correspondence with Pope Damasus, Jerome did not call the deuterocanonical books unscriptural, he simply said that Jews he knew did not regard them as canonical. But for himself, he acknowledged the authority of the Church in defining the canon. When Pope Damasus and the Councils of Carthage and Hippo included the deuterocanon in Scripture, that was good enough for St. Jerome. He "followed the judgment of the churches."
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old Oct 11, '04, 9:43 pm
asteroid asteroid is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: September 16, 2004
Posts: 1,107
Religion: Catholic
Send a message via Yahoo to asteroid
Default Re: Jerome and the apocrypha

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Waddell

The following Envoy article should help: [url="http://www.envoymagazine.com/backissues/1.2/marapril_story2.html"
5 Myths about 7 Books[/url]

It is specifically myth 5 quoted here.
Many thanks for posting that link. I just know it's going to come in handy. One of the leaders of the church I've just been leaving to go catholic seems to take great joy in saying "Even Jerome didn't see them as scripture". He's said it several times to me and I wasn't even considering conversion then. So, many thanks.

Blessings

Asteroid
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old Oct 12, '04, 1:24 pm
jimmy jimmy is offline
Book Club Member
 
Join Date: June 22, 2004
Posts: 9,595
Default Re: Jerome and the apocrypha

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sirach14
Did jerome say no to the apocrypha, as being part of the canon? Dr. Joe Mizzi says yes.

http://www.justforcatholics.org/a108.htm
Jerome believed this because he spent some time with the Jews and came away with there belief on this issue.

Justin and Ignatius both support the septuagint as the scripture. The Jews did not use the septuagint and it had the deutero canonicals.

the bishops at the council of Carthage said they are canon,

the bishops at the council of Rome said they are canon,

the bishops at the council of Hippo said they are canon,

the bishops at the council of Trullo said they are canon,

the bishops at the council of Flourence said they are canon,

and the bishops at the council of Trent said they are canon.

These councils all had several bishops even hundred in attendance. I would say the opinion of all these bishops over rides the opinion of one bishop Jerome.
__________________
"Who has the more difficult task: the teacher who lectures on earnest things a meteor's distance from everyday life-or the learner who should put it to use?"
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old Oct 12, '04, 7:01 pm
c0achmcguirk c0achmcguirk is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2004
Posts: 216
Religion: Reformed Protestant
Default Re: Jerome and the apocrypha

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Waddell
In his later years St. Jerome did indeed accept the Deuterocanonical books of the Bible. In fact, he wound up strenuously defending their status as inspired Scripture, writing, "What sin have I committed if I followed the judgment of the churches?
That quote is grossly misleading. Jerome isn't speaking on the extent of the Canon here, other than the objections of the Jews and what translation of Daniel should be read in churches.

Other Catholic scholars agree with me that Jerome didn't believe the Apocrypha were inspired. This is a moot point.

"St. Jerome distinguished between canonical books and ecclesiastical books. The latter he judged were circulated by the Church as good spiritual reading but were not recognized as authoritative Scripture."
--The New Catholic Encyclopedia, The Canon

God bless,
c0ach
__________________
"At the most basic level, the liberal is an adolescent forever in search of a world without moral consequences."
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old Oct 12, '04, 10:18 pm
PhilVaz PhilVaz is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2004
Posts: 3,106
Religion: Catholic
Send a message via Skype™ to PhilVaz
Exclamation Jerome again

Oh no not this topic again. The best discussion was near the beginning of the board in this thread

St. Jerome and the Deuteros

St. Jerome did make a distinction between the deuteros and the Hebrew canon, but he also called various deuteros "Scripture" and used them repeatedly along with the Hebrew canon. So there were OT books he considered "inspired" or "Scripture" but not fully canonical. That's a fair summary of his position.

Phil P
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old Oct 13, '04, 7:17 am
dday6750 dday6750 is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: May 27, 2004
Posts: 20
Default Re: Jerome and the apocrypha

I too have been on Dr. Joe Mizzi's website and my opinion about his website is that it is very misleading. "Justforcatholics" is a misleading name to get Catholics on his site and then try a convince Catholics that their beliefs are wrong.(Very deceiving!!!)

However; I need some help understanding exactly what the apocrypha is. I was told by a Baptist preacher that the 7 books of the Old Testament of a protestant Bible were put in the Apocrypha because it was believed that these books were not inspired for teaching (something like that?!?). Anyways, on the newadvent website under Apocrypha there are many,many books listed such as Assumption of Moses, Apocalypse of Mary. etc...,but were not put in the Bible because they were not considered inspired by God.

In my Bible (The New American Bible 1972) the Epistle of Jude has an introduction in which it says that St. Jerome "acknowledges that some rejected the epistle because of its citation of the apocryphal Book of Enoch, but states that the ancient authority it enjoyed and its use in the churches assured it place in the canon of inspired writings". In the footnotes of my Bible Jude 14 cites a quotation from the Book of Enoch and Jude 8 talks about the dispute between Michael the archangel and the devil over Mose's body which is described in the apocryphal Assumption of Moses.

I guess my question is do protestants know that there is an apocrypha with all these writings or do they believe that the apocryha is just the 7 books of the Old Testament that are not in their Bible?????

Does any of this make sense????

God Bless All
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old Oct 13, '04, 4:55 pm
PhilVaz PhilVaz is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2004
Posts: 3,106
Religion: Catholic
Send a message via Skype™ to PhilVaz
Default what is apocrypha?

<< I guess my question is do protestants know that there is an apocrypha with all these writings or do they believe that the apocryha is just the 7 books of the Old Testament that are not in their Bible????? >>

Makes sense. The answer is both Catholics and Protestants believe there is an "apocrypha" but Protestants add to their "apocrypha" the 7 deuterocanonical books that Catholic consider fully canonical.

And Catholics consider them canonical for various reasons, most of them listed in the article linked above: they were accepted by the majority of the Church Fathers and Bishops, they were accepted by the same councils that listed the 27-book New Testament canon (Carthage/Hippo), they were read at the Liturgy from the very beginning, there are at least some allusions to the deuteros in the NT, and the Septuagint was most probably the Bible used by Jesus and His apostles, and this Septuagint (at least the copies we have) contain all or most of these deuterocanonical books, etc.

Now Protestants counter with examples of Fathers who they think rejected the deuteros, such as Jerome. Although as I pointed out before, Jerome while making a technical distinction between the deuteros (39 + 7 = 46 books) and the Hebrew canon (39 books), quoted them constantly along with "canonical" OT, and even called these books "Scripture." So there can be "Scripture" that is not strictly "canonical" is how St. Jerome viewed them.

The online Catholic Encyclopedia article on apocrypha would help.

Phil P
Reply With Quote
Reply

Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Apologetics > Sacred Scripture

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search Thread
Search Thread:

Advanced Search
Display

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



Prayer Intentions

Most Active Groups
8256Meet and talk,talk talk
Last by: KEPardue
5018CAF Prayer Warriors Support Group
Last by: UpUpAndAway
4345Devotion to the Sorrowful Mother
Last by: lsbar
4029OCD/Scrupulosity Group
Last by: B79
3833SOLITUDE
Last by: tuscany
3568Let's empty Purgatory
Last by: RJB
3226Poems and Reflections
Last by: PathWalker
3203Catholic Vegetarians & Vegans
Last by: memphian
3124Petitions Before the Blessed Sacrament
Last by: grateful_child
3048For seniors and shut- ins
Last by: tammany



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 3:32 pm.

Home RSS Feeds - Home - Archive - Top

Copyright © 2004-2014, Catholic Answers.