Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger (13 page)

In all this abundance of learned men, has there been
one who has dared to make havoc of the
divine record
[Instrumentum divinum] handed down to the Churches by the Apostles
and the
deposit of the Holy Spirit
[depositum Sancti Spiritus]? For what can we
call it but havoc, when some parts of it are transformed, and this is called
the correction of an error? For instance, the whole of the history of Susanna,
which gave a lesson of chastity to the churches of God, has by him been cut
out, thrown aside and dismissed. The hymn of the three children, which is
regularly sung on festivals in the Church of God, he has wholly erased from the
place where it stood. But why should I enumerate these cases one by one, when
their number cannot be estimated?
[330]

Notice that Rufinus explicitly
denies
the Protestant
contention that removing the disputed parts of Daniel would represent ‘the
correction of an error.’ On the contrary, he unequivocally affirms that those
Deuterocanonical parts are part of the ‘deposit of the Holy Spirit,’ found in
the ‘divine record’ and handed down to the Church by the apostles.
[331]
Rufinus, in other
words, considered the longer Daniel to be nothing less than the Word of God.
This being the case, why does he rule that the lesser, ‘ecclesiastical’
category to which he assigns this material should not be appealed to for the
confirming of doctrine? Why, since he clearly did not follow his own advice in
the matter?

In truth, any strict interpretation of Rufinus’ rule is
fraught with problems. As we have already seen, the Deuterocanon was constantly
used to confirm Christian doctrine in the early Church, from the days of
Polycarp right up until Rufinus’ own time—and this by the most venerated names
in the annals of the Faith. This usage could not have escaped Rufinus’ notice.
Origen himself, Rufinus’ great hero, is one of the worst offenders against this
supposed rule! Yet Rufinus claims that his view of the matter dates back into
antiquity; he even claims that his term “ecclesiastical books” was used by the
Fathers—though there is no evidence of anyone using it prior to Rufinus himself.
[332]

A second difficulty arises when we reflect upon the New
Testament quote with which Rufinus introduces his list: 

All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable
for
teaching, for reproof, for correction
, for training in righteousness; so
that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.
[333]

If these words of the Apostle Paul are true, and if the
Deuteros are not (as Rufinus affirms) mere human apocrypha but “Scripture” in
at least some sense, then the Deuteros are, by definition, profitable for
teaching, reproof, and correction.
[334]
  How then, can Rufinus deny them this attribute?
All
Scripture [literally
every
Scripture] is profitable for teaching
doctrine. So the Deuteros must be either Scripture and profitable, or human
apocrypha and not profitable. The one thing they cannot, logically, be is both
scriptural and not profitable—and yet that is just what Rufinus appears to be
trying to say.

The solution to this problem reveals itself when we are
willing to take the author’s words a bit less literally. Rufinus’ comments are
not directed towards the
intrinsic qualities
of the Deuterocanon (i.e.
that
by their very nature
they are not capable of confirming doctrine),
but to the Deuterocanon’s
extrinsic qualities
(i.e. that they were not
always
useful
in argument
with every kind of opponent). Antiquity
does support this interpretation, for from as early as Justin Martyr, Christians
had accepted that the Deuterocanon could not be used to confirm doctrine
with
the Jews
, who had already rejected those books. Beginning with Polycarp,
however, and right up to own Rufinus’ day, the Church
had
accepted them
and used them to confirm doctrine
for Christians.
So
the unique
title of “ecclesiastical” ceases to be problematic in this interpretation,
since it becomes an apt description of the extrinsic usefulness of the
writings. They are “Church” books—because they are esteemed as Scripture only
inside the ecclesia (i.e. the Church). By his own usage, this broader
interpretation places Rufinus’ comments squarely in line with antiquity and
explains how it could be that Rufinus later accepted and defended the canon as
given by Pope Damasus/the Council of Rome against the machinations of his
former colleague Jerome.
[335]

Who was the first to call the Deuterocanon ‘“Apocrypha”?
We
have now reviewed nearly four hundred years of Church History and have yet to
find any serious, sustained, and consistent attack on the use of the
Deuterocanon as Holy Writ. Our story has, on the contrary, been remarkably
steady so far; every single early Father who used the Deuterocanonical books at
all did so in a manner fully commensurate with their traditional Christian
status as inspired Scripture, often citing them as Scripture in so many words.
Only Julius Africanus raised doubts about these books, but, as we recall, made
no pretense that his opinion was in any way popular or widespread. Besides this
one limited exception, no one but heretics (such as Marcion and Valentinus) had
dared to call these books apocrypha. No one, that is, until now.

Jerome (340–420)

Born in Stridon in Dalmatia, Jerome was baptized around the
age of twenty. Interested in theological and biblical studies, he entered a
school in Tier and later transferred to the famed school of Aquileia where he
befriended Rufinus. East to Antioch, he studied under (the then orthodox)
Apollinaris. After becoming a priest and a monk, he traveled to Constantinople
and eventually stopped in Rome a few years before the death of Pope Damasus (AD
384). With his irascible demeanor and insatiable appetite for brutal
controversy, Jerome quickly made enemies in Rome and was essentially forced to
leave. Returning to the East, he settled in a monastery in Bethlehem where he
spent the rest of his life. Jerome’s greatest contribution to the Church is his
work in biblical studies. His mastery of Latin, Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic is
unique for his time. Pope Damasus commissioned Jerome to replace the
Old
Latin
translation, which had been in service for Latin Christians for
centuries, with a new translation.
[336]

At first, Jerome translated the Greek Septuagint for his new
Latin Vulgate
because he knew that the Septuagint had functioned as
the
Old Testament text for Christianity since the days of the Apostles.
[337]
Indeed, the
Old
Latin
text he sought to improve upon was an ancient translation of the
Greek Septuagint. Jerome quickly became frustrated with this task because he
had to examine and collate various versions of the Septuagint in order to
arrive at an original. By contrast, he had a Hebrew text available which seemed
to have circulated a long time in only one standardized and stable version.
Since the Septuagint itself is a translation of the Hebrew, he thought, why
bother dragging the Greek in at all? Why not simply translate directly from the
Hebrew? Jerome called this principle—that of placing the Hebrew
Masoretic
Text
over and against all other versions—the principle of “Hebrew Verity”
(Hebrew truth or veracity). Hebrew Verity plays a big role in Jerome’s
translation of the
Latin Vulgate
.

In principle, Jerome was right; the original, inspired
Hebrew really is what ultimately needs to be translated. Unfortunately, Jerome
made a critical error in his application of that principle; he thought that the
Hebrew original had been preserved
only
in the single rabbinical
tradition represented by the
Masoretic Text
and that the Greek
Septuagint was nothing but a faulty translation of that text tradition. In this
Jerome was wrong. With the discovery of the
Dead Sea Scrolls
we have
been able to confirm what more traditional voices had insisted upon all
along—that the Septuagint had not been venerated by Christians for nothing,
that it long predates the text preferred by Jerome and (along with other
sources) preserves remnants of a more ancient textual tradition now lost.
Though the
Masoretic Text
is undoubtedly a very good and authentic
tradition of the ancient texts, it underwent a process of development before
reaching its final form during the middle of the second Christian century. What
Jerome unwittingly did was to pit one authentic textual tradition (the MT)
against all other authentic texts (e.g. the
Septuagint
, et al.);
[338]
his principle of
Hebrew Verity was valid, but disastrously misapplied. Scholar A. C. Sundberg
explains:

But now, it has been shown, Jerome’s case falls
hopelessly to the ground since it was based on the misconception that that
Jewish canon was the canon of Jesus and the apostles. Any continuing appeal
through the reformers to Jerome and the Hebrew canon comes to this same end.
Two different communities were involved in defining canons out of the common
material of pre-70 Judaism. And since the church did define her OT canon for herself,
what historical claim does the Jewish definition of the canon about the end of
the first century have for the church? …If Protestant Christianity is to
continue its custom of restricting its OT canon to the Jewish canon, then an
entirely new rationale and doctrine of canon will have to be described. And any
Protestant doctrine of canonization that takes seriously the question of
Christian usage and historical and spiritual heritage will lead ultimately to
the Christian OT as defined in the Western Church at the end of the fourth and
the beginning of the fifth centuries.
[339]

Jerome’s version of Hebrew Verity carried with it an
important corollary in regards to the Old Testament canon.
[340]
If the
Masoretic Text
is identical to
the inspired Hebrew original and if it does not include the Deuterocanon, then
the Deuterocanon is not inspired. This corollary Jerome ultimately accepted,
though it put him at odds with the whole of the early Church. Jerome is the
first of the Western Fathers to deny the inspired status of the Deuterocanon;
the first to unabashedly designate them apocrypha instead.
[341]
Gigot goes even further: “…St. Jerome [is]
the sole Father on record
as quoting
sometimes the Deuterocanonical
books with a restriction concerning their canonical character.”
[342]

Jerome’s new canon was an innovation—and he knew it. He knew
that it would provoke a maelstrom of criticism from all over the ancient world;
yet like Julius Africanus before him, he was convinced that he, by means of
Hebrew Verity, had stumbled upon a truth which had eluded the entire Christian
world up to that point. As a preemptive strike against his critics, Jerome
wrote a series of prefaces to the various books of his newly completed
Latin
Vulgate,
then sent copies of the books to influential friends. These
friends, in turn, circulated the translation, along with his critical prefaces,
among the Christian public.
[343]

The first preface to appear was the
Preface to Samuel and
Chronicles,
known as the Helmeted Prologue [L. prologus galeatus], because Jerome
wanted it to serve as an armored defensive against his critics.
[344]
Of all Jerome’s
prefaces, the Helmeted Prologue is the most pointed and contains the strongest
denial of the inspired and canonical status of the Deuterocanon. In it, he
wrote this:

This preface to the Scriptures may serve as a
‘helmeted’ introduction to all the books which we now turn from Hebrew into
Latin,
so that we may be assured that what is not found in our list
must be placed amongst the Apocryphal writings
. Wisdom...the book
of...Sirach, and Judith, and Tobias, and the Shepherd
are not in the canon.
[345]

The Deuterocanon, a source for the New Testament writers
themselves and heralded by the earliest Christians as divine Scripture, is now
to be overthrown on the authority of Jerome alone. His other prefaces express
similar sentiments. In the
Preface to the Book of Proverbs,
Jerome
writes this:

We have the authentic book of Jesus son of Sirach,
and
another pseudepigraphic work
, entitled the Wisdom of Solomon. I found the
first in Hebrew, with the title, ‘Parables’, not Ecclesiasticus, as in Latin
versions...The second finds no place in Hebrew texts, and its style is redolent
of Greek eloquence: a number of ancient writers assert that it is a work of
Philo Judaeus.
Therefore, just as the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the
books of Maccabees, but does not admit them to the canon of Scripture; so let
the Church read these two volumes, for the edification of the people, but not
to support the authority of ecclesiastical doctrines
.
[346]

Jerome’s identification of the Sirach as a pseudepigraphic
work is another first.
[347]
The
Preface to Ezra
advocates a wholesale adoption of the rabbinical
canon.

What is not received by them [the Hebrews] and what is
not of the twenty-four ancients
is to be repulsed far from one
.
[348]

Jerome’s
Commentary on Esther
reduces the
Deuterocanonical sections of that book to “ragged patches of words.”
[349]

Jerome’s most disparaging remarks are found in his
Letter
to Laeta
107.12, in which he advises, “
Let her shun all Apocrypha
,
and
if ever she should read them, not for confirmation of dogmas, but out of
reverence for the words
, let her know that they are not of those who appear
in the titles, and that there are many false things intermingled in them, and
that one has
need of great prudence to seek the gold in the slime
.”
[350]

Although Jerome permits the daughter-in-law of Paula to read
the disputed books “out of reverence for the words,” she should do so with
caution because they contain false things  mixed in them. His analogy of
gold being mixed in slime is perhaps the most irreverent expression used
against the Deuterocanon since Julius Africanus’ dispute with Origen.

Protestant apologists often attempt to make Jerome the
spokesman for a large silent majority of knowledgeable Christians in his day;
this opinion is supported by no evidence whatsoever. Protestant scholars have
long admitted that Jerome was essentially alone in his opposition to the
Deuterocanon.
[351]
 
It was the product of his own (flawed, as we now know) scholarship. It was also
a decisive break from the practice of the ancient Christian Church—something
which would have given a humbler man serious pause:

[I]n addition to the mischief he did by his ungoverned
rhetoric in his quarrels with other theologians, he [Jerome] did a much greater
mischief by giving the sanction of his great fame as a scholar to a theory on
the Canon, which, whatever its merits, was
not
that of the
primitive Church. What I ventured to say was, for the most part, of common and
elementary knowledge; but it needs to be continually emphasized in view of the
still prevailing theories about the Canon in many high quarters.
[352]

The laws of physics teach that for every action there is an
equal and opposite reaction. A similar principle also has applications to
Church history. Whenever an individual attempts to foist an innovation contrary
to the common accepted practice, there is usually a reaction.  Jerome’s
case is no exception. Jerome expected opposition, and he got it; not only in
personal correspondences but also in formal conciliar decrees.
[353]

One of Jerome’s most bitter opponents was his
once-best-friend-turned-adversary, Rufinus. In Rufinus’
Apology Against
Jerome
and in Jerome’s
Apology Against Rufinus
, the topic of Hebrew
Verity (and by extension Jerome’s adoption of the Jewish shorter canon) was
discussed at length. Rufinus writes:

There has been from the first in the churches of God,
and especially in that of Jerusalem, a plentiful supply of men who being born
Jews have become Christians; and their perfect acquaintance with both languages
and their sufficient knowledge of the law is shewn by their administration of
the pontifical office. In all this abundance of learned men, has there been one
who has dared to make havoc of the divine record handed down to the Churches by
the Apostles and the deposit of the Holy Spirit?

Some controversialists argue that the Deuterocanon was
accepted in the ancient Church only because Christians were ignorant of Hebrew
and relied on the Greek Septuagint for Scripture. It is argued that had the
early Church understood Hebrew and been able to converse with the rabbis of their
day, they would have learned the truth about the canon. What is forgotten is
what Rufinus reminds Jerome: there
always was
a steady stream of
Hebrew-speaking converts coming into the Church. They knew both Hebrew and
Jewish traditions. Yet none of them, according to Rufinus, had ever attempted
to alter the Christian canon. Rufinus claims, much like his master Origen
against Africanus, that the Scriptures are a deposit left by the apostles for
Christ’s bride: the Church. It is inconceivable that the Apostles failed in
their duty because they did not provide for the Church a true and undoubted
collection of Scripture. Rufinus summarizes this argument dramatically:

These men [the Apostles] who bid us not attend to
Jewish fables and genealogies, which minister questioning rather than
edification; and who, again, bid us beware of, and specially watch, those of
the circumcision; is it conceivable that they could not foresee through the
Spirit that a time would come, after nearly four hundred years, when the church
would find out that the Apostles had not delivered to them the truth of the old
Testament, and would send an embassy [Jerome] to those whom the apostles spoke
of as the circumcision, begging and beseeching them to dole out to them some
small portion of the truth which was in their possession: and that the Church
would through this embassy confess that she had been for all those four hundred
years in error; that she had indeed been called by the Apostles from among the
Gentiles to be the bride of Christ, but that they had not decked her with a
necklace of genuine jewels; that she had fondly thought that they were precious
stones, but now had found out that those were not true gems which the Apostles
had put upon her, so that she felt ashamed to go forth in public decked in
false instead of true jewels, and that she therefore begged that they would
send her Barabbas, even him whom she had once rejected to be married to Christ,
so that in conjunction with one man chosen from among her own people, he might
restore to her the true ornaments with which the Apostles had failed to furnish
her.
[354]