Do you think this video is accurate?

[NathanH83]

 

[Andrew]

Nope. Jerome only stated that those certain books were not found in the Hebrew, his job was to translate from the Hebrew at the time in Jerusalem.. he never denounced scriptural tradition of the Church nor did he ever state that they are unispired writ.

Also the Churches were not confused nor worried about any New Testament Apocryphal literature entering the Church, that is definitely not what prompted them to form canon lists.

This guy is fake news

 

[Fritz Kobus]

Pastor Cascione (Lutheran LCMS) researched this topic for about 30 years, using the various Greek and Hebrew manuscripts and found a pattern underlying the entire Bible that is not found in extra-Biblical writings. In addition, he found that the patterns are most complete using the manuscripts underlying the King James Version vs. the manuscripts used in modern translations. This suggests a cohesiveness of the 66 books currently in the cannon that is not found with the other books. Here is Pastor Cascione's book on his study:

In Search of the Biblical Order - Patterns in the Text Affirming Divine Authorship from Revelation to Genesis: Gioacchino Michael Cascione: 9780615563756: Amazon.com: Books

In Search of the Biblical Order - Patterns in the Text Affirming Divine Authorship from Revelation to Genesis [Gioacchino Michael Cascione] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. In Search of the Biblical Order - Patterns in the Text Affirming Divine Authorship from Revelation to...

www.amazon.com

 

[Josiah]

This guy makes huge sweeping statements with nothing to support or substantiate it. He speaks of "the church" without any attempt to even define what church he's talking about, he speaks of "books" without ever telling us WHAT books, etc., etc., etc., etc.

And OBVIOUSLY, he's never seen Luther's tome or read the Anglican 39 Articles, both of which note MORE books than the post-Trent RCC bible. The only book Luther REMOVED from the common bibles in Germany in the 16th Century is the Epistle to the Leodiceans (which much later, Catholic bibles started to drop, too). Luther's had one MORE book in it than modern Catholic tomes, the Anglican church's bible had SEVERAL more books in it. The question was NOT which can or should be placed in a tome with the word "BIBLE" appearing on the front cover in genuine imitation gold letters, the question was CANONICITY - to what degree is this material CANONICAL? And there were several levels of such, levels of authority, levels of usefulness in evaluating dogma (the purpose of a canon, the word meaning measuring stick, norm, standard).

 

[Lanman87]

Nope. Jerome only stated that those certain books were not found in the Hebrew, his job was to translate from the Hebrew at the time in Jerusalem.. he never denounced scriptural tradition of the Church nor did he ever state that they are unispired writ.

As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it read these two volumes for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church- Saint Jerome in the Preface to the Vulgate that is addressed to Chromatius and Heliodorus

I've done a bit of research on the books found in the Catholic Bible as "Canon" and are not found in modern Evangelical Bibles at all but are found in Historical Reformed Bibles (Lutheran, Anglican, some Presbyterian), as Deuterocannical, or lessor books that are profitable to be read but are not considered "God breathed" to the point of being inerrant.

Catholics are wrong when they say Protestant removed them from the Bible and Protestants are wrong when they say Catholics added them to the Bible.

Before the Council of Trent there were two schools of thought on those particular books.

The first I call the Jerome position, as stated above. The second was the Augustinian position that those particular books were "God Breathed" and part of the normative scripture.

Those two positions are woven throughout the church in the middle ages with some Theologians/Scholars taking one position or the other. Ironically, the more educated Theologians were more likely to hold Jerome's position because they knew of the Preface and Jerome's reasoning. However, over time the preface stopped being included in copies of the Vulgate (It is enough work to copy the actual scripture by hand so they stopped adding the preface). As a result Jerome's position became less popular.

By the reformation, the church bishops who believed the position of Jerome were in the minority. However, it was perfectly fine to be a priest/bishop and hold Jerome's position. Luther's understanding of those books was perfectly acceptable in the Catholic church and I'm sure it was a matter of great debate in the Monasteries and Universities (just as it is among Protestants and Catholics today).

The Reformers forced the church to take a stand on those books, one way or another. The Catholic church took the Augustinian position and the Reformers took the position of Jerome.

Eventually, the English speaking Congregational churches stopped including those books in the copies of the Bible (for much the same reason that Jerome's preface stopped being included in the Vulgate). It cost more to publish and they aren't part of the canon anyway.

 

[NathanH83]

As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it read these two volumes for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church- Saint Jerome in the Preface to the Vulgate that is addressed to Chromatius and Heliodorus

I've done a bit of research on the books found in the Catholic Bible as "Canon" and are not found in modern Evangelical Bibles at all but are found in Historical Reformed Bibles (Lutheran, Anglican, some Presbyterian), as Deuterocannical, or lessor books that are profitable to be read but are not considered "God breathed" to the point of being inerrant.

Catholics are wrong when they say Protestant removed them from the Bible and Protestants are wrong when they say Catholics added them to the Bible.

Before the Council of Trent there were two schools of thought on those particular books.

The first I call the Jerome position, as stated above. The second was the Augustinian position that those particular books were "God Breathed" and part of the normative scripture.

Those two positions are woven throughout the church in the middle ages with some Theologians/Scholars taking one position or the other. Ironically, the more educated Theologians were more likely to hold Jerome's position because they knew of the Preface and Jerome's reasoning. However, over time the preface stopped being included in copies of the Vulgate (It is enough work to copy the actual scripture by hand so they stopped adding the preface). As a result Jerome's position became less popular.

By the reformation, the church bishops who believed the position of Jerome were in the minority. However, it was perfectly fine to be a priest/bishop and hold Jerome's position. Luther's understanding of those books was perfectly acceptable in the Catholic church and I'm sure it was a matter of great debate in the Monasteries and Universities (just as it is among Protestants and Catholics today).

The Reformers forced the church to take a stand on those books, one way or another. The Catholic church took the Augustinian position and the Reformers took the position of Jerome.

Eventually, the English speaking Congregational churches stopped including those books in the copies of the Bible (for much the same reason that Jerome's preface stopped being included in the Vulgate). It cost more to publish and they aren't part of the canon anyway.

What did Jerome mean by “the church”?

In his introduction to Judith, Jerome states that the Nicean council accepted Judith as scripture. So clearly Jerome thinks that those church leaders accepted Judith.

The later councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage accepted those books as divine, canonical scripture.

Which church is Jerome saying rejected them?

 

[NathanH83]

As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it read these two volumes for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church- Saint Jerome in the Preface to the Vulgate that is addressed to Chromatius and Heliodorus

I've done a bit of research on the books found in the Catholic Bible as "Canon" and are not found in modern Evangelical Bibles at all but are found in Historical Reformed Bibles (Lutheran, Anglican, some Presbyterian), as Deuterocannical, or lessor books that are profitable to be read but are not considered "God breathed" to the point of being inerrant.

Catholics are wrong when they say Protestant removed them from the Bible and Protestants are wrong when they say Catholics added them to the Bible.

Before the Council of Trent there were two schools of thought on those particular books.

The first I call the Jerome position, as stated above. The second was the Augustinian position that those particular books were "God Breathed" and part of the normative scripture.

Those two positions are woven throughout the church in the middle ages with some Theologians/Scholars taking one position or the other. Ironically, the more educated Theologians were more likely to hold Jerome's position because they knew of the Preface and Jerome's reasoning. However, over time the preface stopped being included in copies of the Vulgate (It is enough work to copy the actual scripture by hand so they stopped adding the preface). As a result Jerome's position became less popular.

By the reformation, the church bishops who believed the position of Jerome were in the minority. However, it was perfectly fine to be a priest/bishop and hold Jerome's position. Luther's understanding of those books was perfectly acceptable in the Catholic church and I'm sure it was a matter of great debate in the Monasteries and Universities (just as it is among Protestants and Catholics today).

The Reformers forced the church to take a stand on those books, one way or another. The Catholic church took the Augustinian position and the Reformers took the position of Jerome.

Eventually, the English speaking Congregational churches stopped including those books in the copies of the Bible (for much the same reason that Jerome's preface stopped being included in the Vulgate). It cost more to publish and they aren't part of the canon anyway.

 

[Lanman87]

I'll let the New Catholic Encyclopedia explain my position. The entire article can be found here:

The influence of Origen's and Athanasius's restricted canon naturally spread to the West. St. Hilary of Poitiers and Rufinus followed their footsteps, excluding the deuteros from canonical rank in theory, but admitting them in practice. The latter styles them "ecclesiastical" books, but in authority unequal to the other Scriptures. St. Jerome cast his weighty suffrage on the side unfavourable to the disputed books...In his famous "Prologus Galeatus", or Preface to his translation of Samuel and Kings, he declares that everything not Hebrew should be classed with the apocrypha, and explicitly says that Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Tobias, and Judith are not in the Canon. These books, he adds, are read in the churches for the edification of the people, and not for the confirmation of revealed doctrine. An analysis of Jerome's expressions on the deuterocanonicals, in various letters and prefaces, yields the following results: first, he strongly doubted their inspiration; secondly, the fact that he occasionally quotes them, and translated some of them as a concession to ecclesiastical tradition, is an involuntary testimony on his part to the high standing these writings enjoyed in the Church at large, and to the strength of the practical tradition which prescribed their readings in public worship. Obviously, the inferior rank to which the deuteros were relegated by authorities like Origen, Athanasius, and Jerome, was due to too rigid a conception of canonicity, one demanding that a book, to be entitled to this supreme dignity, must be received by all, must have the sanction of Jewish antiquity, and must moreover be adapted not only to edification, but also to the "confirmation of the doctrine of the Church", to borrow Jerome's phrase.


During this intermediate age the use of St. Jerome's new version of the Old Testament (the Vulgate) became widespread in the Occident. With its text went Jerome's prefaces disparaging the deuterocanonicals, and under the influence of his authority the West began to distrust these and to show the first symptoms of a current hostile to their canonicity. On the other hand, the Oriental Church imported a Western authority which had canonized the disputed books, viz., the decree of Carthage, and from this time there is an increasing tendency among the Greeks to place the deuteros on the same level with the others--a tendency, however, due more to forgetfulness of the old distinction than to deference to the Council of Carthage.


In the Latin Church, all through the Middle Ages we find evidence of hesitation about the character of the deuterocanonicals. There is a current friendly to them, another one distinctly unfavourable to their authority and sacredness, while wavering between the two are a number of writers whose veneration for these books is tempered by some perplexity as to their exact standing, and among those we note St. Thomas Aquinas. Few are found to unequivocally acknowledge their canonicity. The chief cause of this phenomenon in the West is to be sought in the influence, direct and indirect, of St. Jerome's depreciating Prologus. The compilatory "Glossa Ordinaria" was widely read and highly esteemed as a treasury of sacred learning during the Middle Ages; it embodied the prefaces in which the Doctor of Bethlehem had written in terms derogatory to the deuteros, and thus perpetuated and diffused his unfriendly opinion.

So, even the Catholic church (or at least the Catholics who write for the New Catholic Encyclopedia) admit that there were two schools of thought (or currents) on these particular books during the middle ages. The Theologians and academics mostly held to Jerome's position due mostly to his prologue being included in the Glossa Ordinaria, which was the primary "text book" of Theological training during the centuries before the reformation. Meanwhile, the church as a whole read from translations of the Vulgate that did not contain the Prologue and the acceptance of the books as "Canon" became the norm among your less educated Bishops and Priest.

Over the centuries the influence of Jerome (and others who were like minded) faded. At the council of Trent there were a few Bishops who argued against Canonizing the Deutero books but by this time the anger against Luther was so fervent that the academic matters didn't matter. If Luther believed it then the Catholic church didn't.

I stand by my comment that these books were not removed by Protestants or added by Catholics. At best, prior to the reformation, you can call the status of these books as "unsettled". Catholics settled on one side and Protestants on the other.

 

[Josiah]

The later councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage accepted those books as divine, canonical scripture.

1. You don't accept regional, diocesan meetings of the Western Latin Catholic Church, so why should we?

2. These small, obscure largely forgotten meetings (until the Roman Catholic Church resurrected them in the 16th Century against Calvin) were not in any sense ecumenical (they were not even known in the East) and so are not at all decisions of the church but of 3 dioceses of the West. Meetings you reject because you don't accept diocesan meetings of the RCC.

3. We have ZERO evidence that the Council of Nicea declared ANYTHING about what is and is not inerrant, fully canonical, inscripturated words of God. And if it did, why has Christianity NEVER, EVER agreed on what books are and are not such? IF this Ecumenical Coucil definitively, authoritatively declared that then all churches that accept that Council wuuld always have identical collections, obviously. And they NEVER have had that. NEVER. Not then, not now, not ever.


Since you claim that "The Church" has officially declared Article 6 of the 39 Articles of the Church of England to be the "BIBLE" and the books listed there MUST be in every tome with the word "BIBLE" on the cover and ONLY that material, then you need to verbatim QUOTE some Ruling Body of All Christianity officially, formally, definitively DECLARING that - and show that all Christians (at least from then on) accepted and submitted to that Authority and Ruling. Otherwise, you are just blowing hot air (for reasons that you insist be kept secret).




.

 

[NathanH83]

1. You don't accept regional, diocesan meetings of the Western Latin Catholic Church, so why should we?

2. These small, obscure largely forgotten meetings (until the Roman Catholic Church resurrected them in the 16th Century against Calvin) were not in any sense ecumenical (they were not even known in the East) and so are not at all decisions of the church but of 3 dioceses of the West. Meetings you reject because you don't accept diocesan meetings of the RCC.

3. We have ZERO evidence that the Council of Nicea declared ANYTHING about what is and is not inerrant, fully canonical, inscripturated words of God. And if it did, why has Christianity NEVER, EVER agreed on what books are and are not such? IF this Ecumenical Coucil definitively, authoritatively declared that then all churches that accept that Council wuuld always have identical collections, obviously. And they NEVER have had that. NEVER. Not then, not now, not ever.


Since you claim that "The Church" has officially declared Article 6 of the 39 Articles of the Church of England to be the "BIBLE" and the books listed there MUST be in every tome with the word "BIBLE" on the cover and ONLY that material, then you need to verbatim QUOTE some Ruling Body of All Christianity officially, formally, definitively DECLARING that - and show that all Christians (at least from then on) accepted and submitted to that Authority and Ruling. Otherwise, you are just blowing hot air (for reasons that you insist be kept secret).




.

That doesn’t answer my question

 

[atpollard]

Which church is Jerome saying rejected them?

The Catholic and Apostolic Church of his day:

• The Church of Christ has been founded by shedding its own blood, not that of others; by enduring outrage, not by inflicting it. Persecutions have made it grow; martyrdoms have crowned it.
• If a soul is not clothed with the teachings of the Church he cannot merit to have Jesus seated in him.
• The Church was founded upon Peter: although elsewhere the same is attributed to all the Apostles, and they all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, the strength of the Church depends upon them all alike, yet one among the twelve is chosen so that when a head has been appointed, there may be no occasion for schism.
• The best advice that I can give you is this. Church-traditions — especially when they do not run counter to the faith — are to be observed in the form in which previous generations have handed them down; and the use of one church is not to be annulled because it is contrary to that of another.
• A man who is well grounded in the testimonies of the Scripture is the bulwark of the Church.

All of these are quotes from Jerome describing what “the Church” means to him, so this is the “church” that rejected them.