[arcura]

JoeT,
I think that you have it right about Jerome.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[JoeT777]

In regards to Jerome and the deuterocanonical books:

If anything, there is one thing that Jerome was, an extremely intelligent saint of an apologist. While unlike Popes, doctors of the church are fallible. In St. Jerome's early years he did have some reservations on the deuterocanonical books. However, it seems the wisdom's years made him think better of it.

...It is true, I said that the Septuagint version was in this book 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? 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. I did not reply to their opinion in the Preface, because I was studying brevity, and feared that I should seem to be writing not a Preface but a book. I said therefore, As to which this is not the time to enter into discussion. Otherwise from the fact that I stated that Porphyry had said many things against this prophet, and called, as witnesses of this, Methodius, Eusebius, and Apollinarius, who have replied to his folly in many thousand lines, it will be in his power to accuse me for not having written in my Preface against the books of Porphyry. If there is any one who pays attention to silly things like this, I must tell him loudly and freely that no one is compelled to read what he does not want; that I wrote for those who asked me, not for those who would scorn me, for the grateful not the carping, for the earnest not the indifferent. Still, I wonder that a man should read the version of Theodotion the heretic and judaizer, and should scorn that of a Christian, simple and sinful though he may be. (Against Rufinus II:33 [A.D. 402]). http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2710.htm

The Jews which Jerome associated with said to the effect, 'the deuterocanonical books were not canon according to the Jews;' Jerome was dutifully reporting that fact.

JT

[arcura]

JoeT,
Thanks much form that additional information.
Very interesting...
Fred

[dwashbur]

I don’t doubt that there was some form of anti-Semitism at play. Don’t forget, Acts, and Paul’s Epistles are complete with examples Jewish reaction to the new ‘Christian’ sect of Jews. The Jews didn’t like Christians reading and expounding on scripture in ‘their’ Synagogues. You might say the Jews ‘hastened’ the split between Christianity and Judaism. I see this as, you might say, soft anti-Semitism in that the Christians preferred separation; I can’t believe that a Christian community willing to allow themselves to be martyred were ‘aggressive’ enough to force the Jews into a new and improved Septuagint in a 3,000 year old dead language.

What "3,000 year old dead language" are you talking about? If you mean Hebrew you're WAY off base. Hebrew was still in use in the time of Jesus, though Aramaic had taken over as the street language after the Babylonian exile. Hebrew continued to be in use through the intertestamental period and well into New Testament times.

But the Septuagint was in great demand by Greek speaking Jews for centuries before Christ. Much of Israel had inclined hard toward the Greek culture. It wasn’t till the fall of the Temple in 70 A.D. do we see a rabbinical resurgence for all things Hebrew such as the Massorah (sp?). I’ve read that many of the Hebrew versions of the Bible are dated to 1,000 A.D; no doubt there was a continued culture of maintaining Hebrew Scripture.

Wrong again. You need to read a good history of the Hebrew language. It was the language of the synagogue and there are even suggestions that it was a spoken language during the time of Christ. I don't know where you're getting this, but somebody is giving you a bum steer.

The Qumran findings can’t be taken as scripture widely in use in Christ’s time.

WHAT? I do hope you're joking. They show that the Hebrew scriptures were alive and well in Christ's time, they show that Hebrew continued as a language in use - note the so-called sectarian scrolls, written in Hebrew, as well as commentaries on the biblical books in Hebrew - they verify what we knew from Jewish history all along: Hebrew continued to be used well into the New Testament era.

And if they were, we don’t know if Christ preferred the Massorah over the Septuagint. Also, without credible new findings that would substantiate that the Qumran findings aren’t little more than dumping grounds for sacred text. What I’m trying to convey is that too much weight may be placed on the finding of Qumran to as a means to investigate the culture of zero A.D.

Where did you get that notion? First of all, Qumran wasn't the only place such scrolls were found. They were found all up and down the Dead Sea area, even down to Masada. We're learning that there was no actual "Qumran sect"; in fact, it's possible that what we found in those caves was the Temple library, smuggled out of Jerusalem and hidden in the caves for safe keeping against the Romans. We do know they were produced at different places by different hands over a period of a couple of centuries, which tells us that the Hebrew scriptures were in constant use during that period and beyond.

Did I misunderstand something, I thought Jerome preferred the Hebrew Scripture, but was ‘commissioned’ to us the Greek text, because many of the scholars (Greek and Latin) of the day were translating the Greek to Latin and the Pope wanted some uniformity. Is that your understanding or did I get something backwards?

I'm not really a specialist on Jerome. I do know he preferred the Hebrew text, but that's about it. So I'll bow out of that part of the topic.

But when it comes to the Dead Sea Scrolls, you've gotten some very bad information. A good place to start getting some better information would be Norman Golb, Who Wrote The Dead Sea Scrolls?.

[arcura]

So it goes, round and round and where it stops nobody knows.
Peace and kindness,
Fred