Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger (37 page)

^[322]
See
On
the Duty of the Clergy
, 1.3.9; 2.4.11; and 2.11.57-58;
On the Holy
Spirit,
3.6.39; and
Concerning Virgins
, 2.4.27-28.

^[323]
The Septuagint groups modern day 1-2
Sm with 1-2 Kgs into four books of Kings (1 Sm=1 Kings (or Kingdoms) and 2
Kgs=4 Kings (or Kingdoms).

^[324]
See Ellis,
Old Testament
, 25.

^[325]
Commentary on the Symbol of the
Apostles
, 36-38. Emphasis added.

^[326]
Commentary on the Twelve
Patriarchs, Blessing of Joseph,
5, [L. Quod et propheta praedixerat, ubi
ait...(quotes Bar 3:36-38)].

^[327]
Commentary on the Twelve
Patriarchs, Blessing of Gad,
3, [L. ita enim Scripura dicit...(quotes Sir
34:9)] and
Commentary on the Twelve Patriarches, Blessing of Joseph
3,
[L. sed et sanctae Scriptura sententia est...(quotes Sir 11:30)].

^[328]
Also,
Commentary on the Twelve
Patriarches, Blessing of Joseph
, 46, [L. quae Prophetae
praedixerant...(quotes Ws 3:7)].

^[329]
The apology addresses Jerome’s
removal of the Deuterocanonical portions of Daniel, but his works are equally
applicable to Jerome’s rejection of the rest of the Deuterocanon.

^[330]
Apology Against Jerome
, 2.33.
Emphasis added.

^[331]
Also see,
Apology Against Jerome
,
2.33-35.

^[332]
The term “ecclesiastical books”
appears first in Rufinus, then in Jerome. Protestant scholar J.N.D. Kelly
believes that the phrase must have been coined by Origen, but he does not
furnish any references to back up this claim. He may have simply inferred a
wider usage based on Rufinus’ words. J.N. D. Kelly
, Jerome: His Life,
Writings and Controversies
(Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1998), 160.

^[333]
2 Tm 3:16-17 (NASB). Emphasis added.

^[334]
Commentary on the Symbol of the
Apostles
, 36-38.

^[335]
See Howorth
,
“Jerome,” 345.

^[336]
By the fifth century, the
Old
Latin
version had become corrupted beyond revision. It was said that there
were as many variations in the text as there were manuscripts. A fresh
translation was needed.

^[337]
Over eighty percent of the Old
Testament quotations which appear in the Greek New Testament are direct quotes
from the Septuagint.

^[338]
Kelly, Jerome, 159-160.

^[339]
Sundberg, Albert C. Jr., “The
Protestant Canon: Should It Be Re-examined?”
CBQ
(1966): 28.202-203.

^[340]
Kelly,
Jerome
, 160. Also see,
The Cambridge History of the Bible: The West from the Father to the
Reformation
, vol. 2, ed. G. W. H. Lampe, (Cambridge: Cambridge Univerity
Press), 1969, 92

^[341]
Fuller, “Old Testament Canon,”
NCC
,
26.

^[342]
Gigot, 58. Emphasis added.

^[343]
Jerome’s manuscripts were scattered
extensively throughout the Western Church much to the chagrin of Rufinius who
complained: “But how are we to regard those translations of yours which you are
now sending about everywhere, through our churches and monasteries, through all
our cities and walled towns?” (
Apology Against Jerome
, 2.32). Indeed,
the rapidity and expansiveness of Jerome’s writings is impressive. For details,
see Howard, H. H., “The Influence Of St Jerome On The Canon Of The Western
Church,”
JTS
(Oct. 1911), 13,1-17.

^[344]
Kelly,
Jerome
, 161.

^[345]
Preface to Samuel and Kings
“Helmeted Prologue” [Prologus Galeatus]. Emphasis added.

^[346]
Preface to the Books of Solomon
.
Emphasis added.

^[347]
Pseudepigraphic can mean either a
work that was written by an unknown author or a work that contains false
teachings.

^[348]
Preface to the Book of Ezra
.
Emphasis added.

^[349]
Preface to the Book of Esther
.

^[350]
Letter
, 307-12,
To Laeta.

^[351]
Metzger,
Introduction
, 178.

^[352]
Howorth, “Jerome,” 319. Also see,
Dictionary
of Christian Antiquities
, ed. William Smith and Samuel Cheetham, (London:
John Murray, 1876), 1.278; Bruce,
Bible
, 90-93; and Hengel,
Septuagint
,
50 FN 80.

^[353]
See Howorth, “Jerome,” 339.

^[354]
Apology Against Jerome
,
2.33-34. Emphasis added. Rufinus’ argument concerns the primacy of the
Septuagint as well as other issues. However, Jerome’s rejection of the
Deuterocanon is a logical consequence of his acceptance of Hebrew Verity.
Therefore, Rufinus’ comments are
ad rem
to our discussion.

^[355]
Preface to Tobit
.

^[356]
Reuss,
History
, 194.

^[357]
See Gigot,
Introduction
,
58-59, 81; Steinmueller,
Companion
, 78.

^[358]
Breen,
Introduction
, 443.
Emphasis in original.

^[359]
Commentary in Daniel
, 2.

^[360]
Prologue to John, [L. Liber quoque
Tobiae, licet non habeatur in Canone, tamen quia usurpatur ab Ecclesiasticis
viris].

^[361]
See
Commentary in Eccles
. 8.

^[362]
Prologue to Jeremiah
.

^[363]
Letter
77:4,
to Oceanus.

^[364]
Commentary on Isaiah
, Book 2,
3:12;
Letter
77.6; 108.22; 118.1; 148:2,16, 18.

^[365]
See
Commentary on Jeremiah
,
Book 4, 21:14;
Commentary on Ezekiel
, Book 6, 18:6; and
Letter
64.5.

^[366]
See
Commentary on Isaiah
,
Book 8, 24:4;
Commentary on Ezekiel
, Book 6, 18:6;
Letter
57.1
To
Pammachius;
and
Letter
125.19,
To Rusticus.

^[367]
See
Commentary on Isaiah
,
Book 1, 1:24;
Commentary on Zechariah
, Book 3, 14:9; and
Commentary
on Malachi
, 3:7ff.

^[368]
See
Commentary on Galatians
,
Book 1, 3:2, [L. de quo (Spiritu Sancto) alibi scribitur] and
Breviarium in
Psalmos
, Ps 9, [Et alibi (ipse Deus ait)].

^[369]
See
Against Palegians
, Book
2.30;
Letter
7,
To Chromatius, Jovinus and Eusebius
and again in
Against
the Pelagians,
2.30.

^[370]
See
Letter
3,1 (AD 374)
to
Rufinus the Monk
;
Letter
22, 9-10
to Eustochium; Letter
1, 9
to
Innocent.

^[371]
Letter
48
to Pammachius
,
14.

^[372]
Letter
54.16,
to Furia
,
16.

^[373]
Letter
65, 1.

^[374]
Preface to Tobit
, [L. Quem
Hebraei de catalogo vi. S.S. secantes his quae hagiographa memorant
manciparunt… sed melius esse judicans displicere, institi ut potui]. Emphasis
added.

^[375]
See Reuss,
History
, 195.

^[376]
Preface to the Book of Judith.

^[377]
This claim is made in Geisler and
MacKenzie, 170, FN 40. These authors understand Jerome’s statements that he
“followed the judgment of the churches” and that “[He] was not following my own
personal opinion” (
Against Rufinus
, 33) to be an admission that the
rejection of the Deuterocanon reflected the views of the Church. The context
indicates, however, that these references were made in regards to the
Theodotion
Version
of the Greek Old Testament and not the Deuterocanon, “I also told
the reader that the version read in the Christian churches was not that of the
Septuagint translators but that of Theodotion. It is true, I said that the
Septuagint version was in this book [the book of Daniel] very different from
the original, and that it was condemned by the right judgment of the churches
of Christ; but the fault was not mine who only stated the fact, but that of
those who read the version. We have four versions to choose from those of
Aquila, Symmachus, the Seventy, and Theodotion. The churches choose to read
Daniel in the version of Theodotion. What sin have I committed in
following
the judgment of the churches
?”  (Emphasis added.) The
Theodotion
Version
of Daniel includes the Deuterocanonical sections. See H.B. Swete,
Introduction
to the Old Testament in Greek
, revised by R.R. Ottley, (Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson, 1989), 44. For this reason, Jerome had originally included
rabbinical arguments against these sections in his Preface. But Jerome claims
that these arguments did not represent his own view, “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…[by the rabbis].” (Emphasis added.)

^[378]
Examples in history abound. The
Gnostic Marcion, who believed the Old Testament chronicled the work of an evil
materialistic god, disparaged the Old Testament and the Gospels accepting only
the writings of Paul and an adulterated version of Luke. The Ebionite sect did
away with the letters of Paul preferring to accept only the Gospels since
Paul’s statements about the Jewish ceremonial law contradicted their beliefs.
Others can be listed as well. In all cases, the heretics placed their own
person theological views over the word of God.

^[379]
On Christian Doctrine
, Book
2, 12.

^[380]
“The authority of these books has
come down to us from the apostles through the successions of bishops and the
extension of the Church, and, from a position of lofty supremacy, claims the
submission of every faithful and pious mind”
Against Faustus,
11.5. Also
see,
Against Faustus
, 28.2 and 33.6.

^[381]
On Christian Doctrine
, Book
2, 13. Emphasis added.

^[382]
Against Faustus
, Book 33, 9.

^[383]
Charles J. Costello,
St. Augustine’s
Doctrine on the Inspiration and Canonicity of Scripture
(Ph. D. diss., The
Catholic University of America, 1930), 78.

^[384]
City of God
, 11.30, [L.
multis sanctarum Scripturum locis];
City of God
, 13.16 and 2.21, “Holy
Scripture” [L. sacra Scriptura];
On the Trinity
Book 13.16.21, “Holy
Scripture” [L. sacra Scriptura];
On the Trinity
Book 14.1.1, “Holy
Scripture” [L. sacra Scriptura];
On Lying
, 30-31, “Scripture”;
Of the
Morals of the Catholic Church
, 27, “…could anything agree better with these
passages than what is said in the Old Testament of wisdom…[quotes Ws]”; In
Reply
to Faustus the Manichaean
Book 11.9 he appeals to Ws in a controversy as a
“divine authority.”
Concerning the Nature of Good, Against the Manicheans
,
24;
A Treatise on Grace and Free Will
, 8, Ws is said to contain “divine
commandments”;
Sermons on the Gospel
, Sermon 12.12, “holy Scripture.”

^[385]
Of the Morals of the Catholic
Church
29. Also,
Of the Morals of the Catholic Church
31-32.