did Jerome Consider the Extra Biblical books In Vulgate as Canon Or not?

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by DaChaser1, Feb 24, 2012.

  1. DaChaser1

    DaChaser1
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2011
    Messages:
    2,324
    Likes Received:
    0
    Did any of the reformers, even though some versions used by protestants had them included in it?
     
  2. jonathan.borland

    jonathan.borland
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2008
    Messages:
    1,154
    Likes Received:
    0
    There were no extrabiblical books in the Jerome's Vulgate. The Apocrypha was added in the mid-16th century at the Council of Trent. It's interesting in the canon debate, that Jerome fashioned the Latin canon after the sure testimony of "all" the earliest witnesses to him (now mostly lost), but concedes that in his present day some of those were debated, such as Hebrews and Revelation, for example, the canonicity of which he never doubts, however.
     
    #2 jonathan.borland, Feb 26, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 26, 2012
  3. gb93433

    gb93433
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,496
    Likes Received:
    6
    For a long time the KJV had the apocryphal books. I saw one online at archive.org that is a 1903 version that had the apocryphal books.
     
  4. Mark_13

    Mark_13
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2012
    Messages:
    271
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am looking at a King James Bible, copyright 1902, right now - no apocrypha.

    (James Pott & Co, New York; Samuel Bagster and Sons, Ltd, London)

    Interestingly it does have a section at the back on "The Sacred Books of Non-Christian Religions"

    It also has this long section on "Obsolete and Ambiguous Words" from the King James, which was evidently necessary even back then. That's what interesting - you can read this KJV and think they all talked like that in even 1902, but no - all the supplemental material in it sounds as if it could have been written yesterday.
     
  5. DaChaser1

    DaChaser1
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2011
    Messages:
    2,324
    Likes Received:
    0
    so the RCC is wrong IF they claim that the church recognized those extra books as being canon befoe the time of the reformation!
     
  6. gb93433

    gb93433
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,496
    Likes Received:
    6
  7. DaChaser1

    DaChaser1
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2011
    Messages:
    2,324
    Likes Received:
    0
    didn't jerome want to leave those out as being non inspired, but was 'forced to" by the church?
     
  8. gb93433

    gb93433
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,496
    Likes Received:
    6
    I have no idea.
     
  9. jonathan.borland

    jonathan.borland
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2008
    Messages:
    1,154
    Likes Received:
    0
    Jerome's Vulgate had only the books that we recognize today, and his basis for rejecting what we call apocryphal books was that they weren't received in the oldest patristic sources available to him (much more than now available to us today, BTW). But Roman Catholics and others liked them and used them. Later on, Jerome's refusal to include them was Luther's justification for excluding them. Then the RCC formally received them in a declarative move against Luther at the council of Trent in 1546.
     
  10. Gold Dragon

    Gold Dragon
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Messages:
    3,837
    Likes Received:
    3
    No

    Interestingly Jerome's canon was listed just above this passage in his prologue to the book of Kings as:

    Law
    Genesis
    Exodus
    Leviticus
    Numbers
    Deuteronomy

    Prophets
    Joshua
    Judges/Ruth
    Samuel
    Kings
    Isaiah
    Jeremiah/Lamentations
    Ezekial
    Twelve Prophets (Hosea to Malachi)

    Hagiographa (Writings)
    Job
    Psalms
    Proverbs
    Ecclesiastes
    Song of Songs
    Daniel
    Chronicle
    Ezra
    Esther

    Yes and no.

    Many within the RCC recognized deuterocanon as canon before the time of the reformation and by the reformation this was by far the majority view. It was the majority view back when Jerome translated the Vulgate as well and was reflected in the Vulgate. However, their inclusion in the canon was not formalized in RCC official councils until the Council of Trent because it was not really an issue until then.

    I don't know if forced is the right word. He disagreed with their canonicity but submitted to the authority of the Church, believing that his view was not the definitive view on the subject.

    This blog quotes a few interesting segments of the Vulgate prologue where Jerome expresses his disagreements on the matter but still submits to the authorities.

    http://domus-aurea.blogspot.com.au/2009/09/jerome-and-deuterocanon.html
     
  11. Martin Marprelate

    Martin Marprelate
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2010
    Messages:
    2,501
    Likes Received:
    454
    It is true that the 1611 KJV had the Apocrypha in it, but it was never regarded by Anglicans as being part of the Canon. Here is Art. VI of the C of E XXIX Articles:-


    VI. Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for salvation
    Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be. believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those Canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.

    Of the Names and Numbers of the Canonical Books

    Genesis. The First Book of Chronicles,
    Exodus. The Second Book of Chronicles
    Leviticus. The First Book of Esdras (ie. Ezra)
    Numbers. The Second Book of Esdras (ie. Nehemiah)
    Deuteronomy. The Book of Esther
    Joshua. The Book of Job
    Judges. The Psalms
    Ruth. The Proverbs
    The First Book of Samuel. Ecclesiastes or Preacher
    The Second Book of Samuel. Cantica or Songs of Solomon
    The First Book of Kings. Four Prophets the greater
    The Second Book of Kings. Twelve Prophets the less


    And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine; such are these following:

    The Third Book of Maccabees. Baruch the Prophet
    The Fourth Book of Maccabees. The Song of the Three Children
    The Book of Tobias. The Story of Susanna
    The Book of Judith. Of Bel and the Dragon
    The rest of the Book of Esther. The Prayer of Manasses
    The Book of Wisdom. The First Book of Maccabees
    Jesus the Son of Sirach. The Second Book of Maccabees

    All the Books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive, and account them Canonical.



    Steve
     

Share This Page

Loading...