Four Surprising Facts About John Calvin and the “Apocrypha”?

I came across an interesting John Calvin article written by one of the apologists from Catholic Answers: Four Surprising Facts About John Calvin and the “Apocrypha”. Let's take a look at their first surprising fact: "Calvin Implicitly Concedes that the Deuterocanon Supports Catholic Teachings."

Quoting a section from Calvin's Acts of the Council of Trent with the Antidote (Acta synodi Tridentinae cum antidoto), the author explains Calvin believed the Apocryphal books clearly taught: purgatory, the worship of saints, satisfactions, and exorcisms. Calvin of course, rejected the Apocrypha as canonical scripture. Despite this rejection, Rome's defender states Calvin realized the clarity of these doctrine in the Apocrypha. He states, "John Calvin: Admitted the Deuterocanon teaches Purgatory, veneration of the Saints, exorcisms, and other doctrines denied by Protestants." Therefore, this implies:

...if Catholics are right about the Deuterocanon, then we’re also right about Purgatory, praying to (not worshipping) the Saints, exorcisms, and so on. That’s pretty huge.

Let's take a closer look at Calvin's text to see if he admits the Apocrypha (Deuterocanon) validates Rome's unique doctrines. I contend that the context demonstrates no such thing. Rather, Calvin was of the opinion that the Papacy would read into any portion of the Bible (canonical or not) to make it say what they wanted it to say. The passage below from Calvin is lengthy, and only slightly edited. 

Context

First, they ordain that in doctrine we are not to stand on Scripture alone, but also on things handed down by tradition. Secondly, in forming a catalogue of Scripture, they mark all the books with the same chalk, and insist on placing the Apocrypha in the same rank with the others... Lastly, in all passages either dark or doubtful, they claim the right of interpretation without challenge...for whatever they produce, if supported by no authority of Scripture, will be classed among traditions, which they insist should have the same authority as the Law and the Prophets. What, then, will it be permitted to disapprove? for there is no gross old wife’s dream which this pretext will not enable them to defend; nay, there is no superstition, however monstrous, in front of which they may not place it like a shield of Ajax. Add to this, that they provide themselves with new supports when they give full authority to the Apocryphal books. Out of the second of the Maccabees they will prove Purgatory and the worship of saints; out of Tobit satisfactions, exorcisms, and what not. From Ecclesiasticus they will borrow not a little. For from whence could they better draw their dregs? I am not one of those, however, who would entirely disapprove the reading of those books; but in giving them in authority which they never before possessed, what end was sought but just to have the use of spurious paint in coloring their errors?...

...they devise a most excellent remedy, when they adjudge to themselves the legitimate interpretation of Scripture. Who can now imagine any improvidence in them? By one article they have obtained the means of proving what they please out of Scripture, and escaping from every passage that might be urged against them. If Confession is to be proved, they are ready with — “Show yourselves to the priests.” If it be asked, Whether recourse should be had to the intercession of the dead? the passage will immediately occur, “Turn to some one of the saints;” also, “For this every holy man will pray to thee.” Nor will Purgatory be left without a sure foundation, for it is written, “He shall not come out thence till he shall have paid the uttermost farthing.” In short, anything may be made of anything! When they formerly produced such passages they made themselves ridiculous even to children. Now, if credit is given them, the right of authorized interpretation will remove every doubt. For what passage can be objected to them so clear and strong that they shall not evade it? Any kind of quibble will at once relieve them from difficulty. Against opposing arguments they will set up this brazen wall — Who are you to question the interpretation of the Church? This, no doubt, is what they mean by a saying common among them, in that Scripture is a nose of wax, because it can be formed into all shapes. If postulates of this kind were given to mathematicians, they would not only make an ell an inch, but prove a mile shorter than an ell, till they had thrown everything into confusion.

What, then, are we to do with this victorious and now, as it were, triumphal Session? Just stand and let the smoke clear away. In regard to Traditions, I am aware that not unfrequent mention of them is made by ancient writers, though not with the intention of carrying our faith beyond the Scriptures, to which they always confine it. They only say that certain customs were received from the Apostles. Some of them appear to have that origin, but others are unworthy of it. These touch only upon a few points, and such as might be tolerated. But now we are called to believe, that whatever the Romanists are pleased to obtrude upon us, flowed by tradition from the Apostles; and so shameless are they, that without observing any distinction, they bring into this class things which crept in not long ago, during the darkness of ignorance. Therefore, though we grant that the Apostles of the Lord handed down to posterity some customs which they never committed to writing; still, first, this has nothing to do with the doctrine of faith, (as to it we cannot extract one iota from them,) but only with external rites subservient to decency or discipline; and secondly, it is still necessary for them to prove that everything to which they give the name is truly an apostolical tradition. Accordingly they cannot, as they suppose, find anything here to countenance them either in establishing the tyranny of their laws, by which they miserably destroy consciences, or to cloak their superstitions, which are evidently a farrago gathered from the vicious rites of all ages and nations. We especially repudiate their desire to make certainty of doctrine depend not less on what they call agrafa, (unwritten,) than on the Scriptures. We must ever adhere to Augustine’s rule, “Faith is conceived from the Scriptures.”

Of their admitting all the Books promiscuously into the Canon, I say nothing more than it is done against the consent of the primitive Church. It is well known what Jerome states as the common opinion of earlier times. And Ruffinus, speaking of the matter as not at all controverted, declares with Jerome that Ecclesiasticus, the Wisdom of Solomon, Tobit, Judith, and the history of the Maccabees, were called by the Fathers not canonical but ecclesiastical books, which might indeed be read to the people, but were not entitled to establish doctrine. I am not, however, unaware that the same view on which the Fathers of Trent now insist was held in the Council of Carthage. The same, too, was followed by Augustine in his Treatise on Christian Doctrine; but as he testifies that all of his age did not take the same view, let us assume that the point was then undecided. But if it were to be decided by arguments drawn from the case itself, many things beside the phraseology would show that those Books which the Fathers of Trent raise so high must sink to a lower place. Not to mention other things, whoever it was that wrote the history of the Maccabees expresses a wish, at the end, that he may have written well and congruously; but if not:, he asks pardon. How very alien this acknowledgment from the majesty of the Holy Spirit! [source]

Conclusion

Granted, Calvin's main argument against the Apocrypha rests on the fact of its spurious canonicity in church history; but the context demonstrates Calvin thought the Council of Trent was interpreting the passages of the Bible the way it needed to in order to substantiate their unique doctrines. Why would Calvin be admitting the Deuterocanon proved Trent's unique doctrines, and then go on to say that Trent treated the text of the Bible like a wax nose ("Scripture is a nose of wax, because it can be formed into all shapes") bending a passage any way it wanted to? It isn't consistent. 

But maybe Calvin was inconsistent... maybe he really did think the Apocrypha taught purgatory, the worship of saints, satisfactions, and exorcisms, etc.? Let's take one example, Purgatory, by popping over to Calvin's magnum opus (and that which ultimately defines his theology): The Institutes of Christian Religion. There we find Calvin going through all the popular Roman Catholic Biblical proof texts for purgatory. In his treatment of 2 Maccabees 12, Calvin writes of what the passage is actually addressing... and it isn't Rome's doctrine of purgatory:

...[T]he piety of Judas is praised for no other distinction than that he had a firm hope of the final resurrection when he sent an offering for the dead to Jerusalem [2 Macc. 12:43]. Nor did the writer of that history set down Judas’ act to the price of redemption, but regarded it as done in order that they might share in eternal life with the remaining believers who had died for country and religion. This deed was not without superstition and wrongheaded zeal, but utterly foolish are those who extend the sacrifice of the law even down to us, when we know that by the advent of Christ what was then in use ceased. [Institutes III.5.8].

While Calvin wrote commentaries on almost every book of the Bible, he did not write commentaries on the Apocrypha.  Therefore, extracting out Calvin's interpretations of passages from the Apocrypha will be slim. What we find though in the rare instance in which Calvin exegetes an Apocryphal passage, he denies Trent's interpretation.  Thus, the first "surprising fact about John Calvin and the Apocrypha" turns out not to be a fact, and therefore not surprising.

Addendum

Many years ago, I picked up a "four views" book on hell. The person defending the Roman Catholic view ("The Purgatorial view") was Zachary J. Hayes. As to Rome's popular prooftext 2 Maccabees 12:41-46, Hayes notes, The Council of Trent maintained this passage provides a scriptural basis, but they were reading the passage with "the mindset of late medieval people" (p. 103). He contrasts this with contemporary Roman Catholic exegetes, and see these verses differently, as "evidence for the existence of a tradition of piety which is at least intertestamental and apparently served as the basis for what later became the Christian practice of praying for the dead and performing good works, with the expectation that this might be of some help to the dead" (pp. 104-105). Hayes says modern Roman Catholic exegetes conclude:  

"Since the text seems to be more concerned with helping the fallen soldiers to participate in the resurrection of the dead, it is not a direct statement of the later doctrine of purgatory" (p. 105).

The Roman Catholic Canon and the Book of Esdras (Part One)

I've been challenged to revisit the controversy about Rome's canonical decrees and the book of 1 Esdras because "This question keeps popping up due to the fans of James Swan, James White, etc... parroting the same erroneous assertion." The controversy involves one of the books of Esdras, the decrees of Hippo and Carthage, and the infallible pronouncement on the canon by the Council of Trent. Did the earlier councils canonize a book that Trent did not? Do the councils contradict each other? The person challenging me says they didn't, and claims an article from 1907 by Father Hugh Pope proves it: The Third Book of Esdras and the Tridentine Council. Pope's basic argument is that when Hippo and Carthage referred to the two books of Esdras in their canon, they meant Ezra - Nehemiah, not the spurious book of 1 Esdras and a second book comprising Ezra - Nehemiah.

What's interesting about Father Pope's article is that in regard to literature about this issue, his work appears to have had little impact on scholarship, either when it was written, or now. It's generally accepted by both Protestant and Roman Catholic scholarship that the early church utilized the spurious book of 1 Esdras, and it's highly likely the Hippo and Carthage did indeed have the spurious book of 1 Esdras in mind when it considered the Biblical canon. As I've surveyed some of the available literature, Pope's article is not typically referred to as any sort of definitive apologetic setting the record straight. A few of Rome's bloggers have certainly picked it up (like this blog for instance), and I have my suspicions that this article may have also used it, but scholarship itself appears to have generally ignored it. In the early 1900's I came across a few mentions of the article, but not meaningful mentions, typically just announcements of the article. Some of Pope's arguments are found elsewhere in credible sources. It seems likely that some sources since 1907 positively utilized Pope's article, but I've yet to find them. Of course, scholarship is not infallible, so it's certainly possible that Hugh Pope is the voice of truth crying in the wilderness of scholarship.

In order to evaluate Pope's article, I'd like to first present some background as to the way this controversy has recently played out. In a future blog entry, Hugh Pope's arguments will be laid out. To try and keep things cogent throughout these articles, I will refer to the disputed book of Esdras as "1 Esdras," though there may be times that "3 Esdras" is used to refer to the same book.

William Webster: The Different Canons of Hippo, Carthage, and Trent
I wrote about the 1 Esdras dilemma in 2006 when I briefly outlined the problem as presented by William Webster in his book, Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol. 2 (Battle Ground: Christian Resources Inc., 2001), p. 346-348 [Webster's material from his book can be found in this link]. In terms of Internet apologetics and cyber-battles with Rome's defenders, I would posit that it was probably Mr. Webster that popularized the argument about contradictory Councils and the canon with 1 Esdras acting as the grenade. The basic gist is that the Councils of Hippo and Carthage had a different 1 Esdras than Trent did. Mr. Webster argues in part,

Roman Catholic apologists argue that the canon was authoritatively settled for the universal Church at the Councils of Hippo and Carthage. However, the canon decreed by the North African Councils differed from that decreed by the Council of Trent in the sixteenth century on one important point. Hippo and Carthage stated that 1 Esdras and 2 Esdras were canonical, referring to the Septuagint version of 1 and 2 Esdras, the Bible their Latin version was based upon. In that version, 1 Esdras was the apocryphal additions to Ezra and Nehemiah not found in the Hebrew Bible, while 2 Esdras was the canonical Jewish version of Ezra-Nehemiah. The Jews only acknowledged Ezra and Nehemiah which they combined into one book. This was 2 Esdras in the Septuagint version. It was Jerome (in his Latin Vulgate) who separated Ezra and Nehemiah into two books, calling them 1 Esdras and 2 Esdras respectively. This became standard for the Vulgate and the basis upon which Trent declared the Septuagint I Esdras to be noncanonical. 1 Esdras in the Septuagint then became 3 Esdras in the Vulgate and the other Apocryphal apocalyptic work of 3 Esdras became 4 Esdras in the Vulgate.

According to Webster, the North African church relied on the Septuagint, and the Septuagint contained the spurious 1 Esdras. There does not appear to be much dispute about this. It's generally recognized that the spurious 1 Esdras was included in the LXX, by both Roman Catholic scholarship and Protestant scholarship. It's not sinister at all: Roger Beckwith notes that Josephus and "the Fathers of the first four centuries" appear to have preferred 1 Esdras over "the corresponding part of Esdras B (Ezra–Nehemiah)," not because they considered it a different book, but because "they regarded it as an alternative (and fuller) Greek translation of the same book" [Beckwith, R. T., The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church and Its Background in Early Judaism (London: SPCK, 1985) p. 340]. Brill's Commentary on 1 Esdras states,

1 Esdras is found in a number of early Christian manuscripts and extant in various translations of ancient Christian Bibles. for a case in point, the presence of 1 Esdras in Codex Vaticanus means that it was copied, read, studied, and preached by Christians and for Christians [link].

The Brill commentary also goes on to document the usage of  "1 Esdras as Christian 'Scripture'." This basic point of manuscript existence and church usage is important because Hugh Pope argues that "the oldest LXX MSS which we possess.. came into existence a few years before the African councils [of Hippo and Carthage], as if there is a serious possibility that the extant LXX manuscripts contained the spurious 1 Esdras as a novelty! Pope refers to this as "the one positive argument alleged for identifying Esdras I and II of the African Councils." It seems highly unlikely that, given all the usage of 1 Esdras in the first five centuries of the church that Hippo and Carthage did not understand 1 Esdras to be the spurious 1 Esdras. Pope attempts to downplay these basic facts because granting their truth collapses the rest of his argumentation.


James White vs. Gary Michuta vs. William Webster 

In 2004, Dr. White debated Roman Catholic apologist Gary Michuta on the Apocrypha. He raised this very issue (fast forward in the video to 1:39:15). Responding to Dr. White,  Mr. Michuta says, "William Webster is wrong" because Trent chose to pass over 1 Esdras "in silence" and not make a decision one way or the other in regard to the canonicity of the book. A few years later Mr. Michuta published Why Catholic Bible Are Bigger (Michigan: Grotto Press, 2007) and used the same argument. I wrote about Mr. Michuta's argument a number of times when his book came out (see for instance, this link).

This may seem like a reasonable solution to keep the integrity of Rome's decrees in unison. Unfortunately, while one problem may be solved (the councils do not contradict each other), others surface. Let’s grant that Trent "passed over in silence" on ruling on the book of 1 Esdras. This means the possibility exists that the book in question is canonical, but not currently in the canon. Therefore, it is possible that the Bible is missing a book, in which case, Roman Catholics cannot be certain they have an infallible list of all the infallible books. Their arguments stating they have canon certainty crumbles according to their own worldview. It would also mean, the canon is still open. Even more troubling for Michuta’s position are the statements put forth on the closed canon from the Roman Catholic Church. The Catholic Catechism states, “It was by the apostolic Tradition that the Church discerned which writings are to be included in the list of the sacred books. This complete list is called the canon of Scripture. It includes 46 books for the Old Testament (45 if we count Jeremiah and Lamentations as one) and 27 for the New.” Notice the words, complete list. If a book is passed over in silence, and may in fact be canonical, the list is not complete. On a theological level, what does it say about Rome's version of the Holy Spirit for an infallible council to pass over something that may be Holy-Spirit inspired Scripture? 

If Mr. Michuta is correct about Trent "passing over in silence" on 1 Esdras, then yes, there is a narrow sense in which William Webster could be wrong that the councils contradict each other. That is, if 1 Esdras is in some sort of conciliar holding pen waiting to be ruled on, the only option to keep Rome's councils from contradicting each other is to deem the book to be sacred Scripture. Will this happen? I doubt it. Rome doesn't appear these days to care about 1 Esdras. Webster's argument has been placed in a conciliar holding pen that's long since been forgotten by Rome's magisterium. If they know where this holding pen is, they don't appear to care.  

Mr. Webster responded to Mr. Michuta by saying, "Trent has spoken quite clearly. 1 Esdras is not canonical. Nowhere in the official list of canonical books is 1 Esdras to be found. The only books that are canonical are those listed by Trent." On Webster's side is the New Catholic Encyclopedia which states of 1 Esdras, "The Council of Trent definitively removed it from the canon." Also in editions of the Vulgate after Trent's decree 1 Esdras placement is tenuous. The 1590 Vulgate omits it, while the 1593 Vulgate places it in an appendix with a preface that says, 

Porro in hac editione nihil non canonicum, nihil adscititium, nihil extraneum apponere visum est: atque ea causa fuit, cur libri tertius et quartus Esdrae inscripti, quos inter canonicos libros sacra Tridentina Synodus non annumeravit, ipsa etiam Manassae regis Oratio, quae neque hebraice, neque graece quidem exstat, neque in manuscriptis antiquioribus invenitur, neque pars est ullius canonici libri, extra canonicae scripturae seriem posita sunt.[link]

 Also on Webster's side is that Trent's canon is held to be definitive by Roman Catholic sources, and in fact, other than Mr. Michuta, I've not yet come across any of Rome's defenders saying the canon is theoretically still open because of Trent's silence on 1 Esdras. No, quite the contrary: Rome's defenders typically battle with the understanding that the canon was settled once and for all by their infallible magisterium. 

Is Gary Michuta Making Up "Passed Over in Silence"?  

What can be said about Mr. Michuta's claims that 1 Esdras was "passed over in silence"? Did he make it up? No, I don't believe he did. In his book, he states the following:

The question was (and still is) 'is Esdras a separate book that happened to use an awful lot of canonical material,' or 'is it an early recension of Scripture with some additional non-canonical material added?' No one knows. The only thing certain about Esdras' canonical pedigree is that it is uncertain.

Many things are questionable about Esdras. The Council of Carthage may have included Esdras on its list. We don't know for certain. Esdras may be an individual book or it may be a recension. No one knows. A few Church Fathers may have used Esdras as a canonical book, but this usage disappeared around the fifth century, although it remained in the Latin Vulgate and the Septuagint. By the time of Trent, the exact nature of the Esdras, both its form and its canonical status, was open to doubt. The best move for Trent was not to move at all.

The fourth question of the Capita Dubitationum asked whether those books that were not included in Trent's list, but were included in the Latin Vulgate (e.g. The Book of Esdras, 4 Ezra, and 3 Maccabees), should be rejected by a Conciliar decree, or should they be passed over in silence. Only three Fathers voted for an explicit rejection. Forty-two voted that the status of these books should be passed over in silence. Eight bishops did not vote The majority won, and Trent deliberately withheld any explicit decision on these books. In post-Tridentine editions of the Vulgate, Esdras and the others were moved to an appendix in the back.

Those who claim then, that Trent" rejected Esdras are mistaken. It did not. In fact, any rejection or affirmation was purposefully withheld. If there was no decision, then Trent cannot be said to have contradicted Carthage. The question of Esdras' canonical status was left theoretically open. [Gary Michuta, Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger (Michigan: Grotto Press, 2007), p. 240-241].

The information from Mr. Michuta that's most important to this discussion is Trent's vote. Gary documents the information as coming from Peter G. Duncker, The Canon of the Old Testament at the Council of Trent [The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 15, No. 3 (July 1953), p. 293-294]. The pertinent section from Duncker isn't that long:

The difficulties made against the wording of the decree, that concern us, are expressed in the following of the 14 “capita dubitationum”:

4. Whether the so-called apocryphal books that are usually included in all the Vulgate codices of the Bible with the sacred books, are to be “nominatim” rejected by this decree, or to be silently omitted.

We may be very brief here. This point arose as a result of an observation of some of the Fathers about such books as 3-4 Esd and 3 Mc; but there was no question that they should be regarded as Sacred Books. The term “apocryphal״ has here undoubtedly the sense, as we Catholics understand the word, applied to the books that non-Catholics call “pseudepigraphic.” The result of the vote indicated that only three Fathers wanted the books to be rejected expressly, eight did not express themselves, forty-two preferred that nothing be said about them. In the later Vulgate editions 3-4 Esd and the prayer of Manasse were added, but as outside the Sacred Books.

The point to keep in mind here is that Duncker states that Trent debated "the so-called apocryphal books that are usually included in all the Vulgate codices." Trent recognized that 3 Esdras (remember- also known as 1 Esdras!) was in the earlier Vulgate. Where does this information come from? Duncker utilized Societas Goerresiana, Concilium Tridentinum (CT). Throughout  the article he relied on reliable primary sources (p.277).

My conclusion? I think that the vote did occur and Trent passed over 1 Esdras in silence. It was probably a pragmatic solution for an issue that Trent's participants didn't really care that much about. It appears to me that Trent's participants were aware of the spurious nature of 1 Esdras, and this can be verified that after Trent, as Duncker states, "In the later Vulgate editions 3-4 Esd and the prayer of Manasse were added, but as outside the Sacred Books." Does this "silence" on 1 Esdras mean William Webster was wrong? No. If Carthage and Hippo really had 1 Esdras in their canon, then most certainly Trent does not officially have it in its canon... yet.

All of this tedium about William Webster, Gary Michuta, and Trent's vote on 1 Esdras demonstrates that Trent recognized there was a problem with 1 Esdras, and that 1 Esdras had been around in the church's usage and manuscripts. While this excursion does not definitively interpret what Hippo and Carthage meant by the two books of Esdras, it does speak to the fact that 1 Esdras was not definitively renounced by the pre-African Council church. If Hugh Pope's paradigm were true, there should not have been any sort of debate at Trent in regard to the book. Pope would have his readers believe that 1 Esdras was rejected previous to the North African Councils, yet Trent demonstrates the book was never definitively rejected, and if Michuta is correct, it hasn't been rejected to this day.

Was 1 Esdras Considered Canonical Previous to the Vulgate?
Was 1 Esdras actually the book in view by Carthage and Hippo? If it was, then all bets are off for Rome's defenders. Mr. Michuta does not deny that the book the Council of Carthage canonized was the spurious 1 Esdras. He says, "Carthage did, indeed, accept 'Esdras, two books" and the identity of these two books seems straightforward enough" (p.238). Gary asks, "[W]hat did the Council of Carthage mean when it called for a canon with 'Esdras two books'? Did it mean Nehemiah alone, or did it mean Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esdras proper? It is difficult to tell. It appears that Carthage would have more likely included Esdras, not omitted it. However, neither case is certain" (p.239). Mr. Michuta documents this by referring to Francis Gigot, General Introduction to the Study of the Holy Scriptures (New York: Benzinger Brothers, 1900), p. 121. Gigot  is far more certain than Mr. Michuta. He states,

The Third Book of Esdras.

The second apocryphal writing now placed at the end of the authorized editions of the Latin Version, is the third book of Esdras, thus called in the Vulgate because our canonical books of Esdras and Nehemias are known respectively as the first and the second book of Esdras. In the old Latin, Syriac and Septuagint versions, it was named the first book of Esdras from its position immediately before our canonical books of Esdras and Nehemias. This latter name has great historical importance, inasmuch as when early Councils and writers of the Church speak of the first book of Esdras they have in view our third book of  that name, and when in their lists of sacred books they mention only two books of Esdras, the first to which they allude is our third book, while their second corresponds to our canonical books of Esdras and Nehemias counted together as one work.  

The nomenclature just referred to is found in the African councils of Hippo and Carthage, in the writings of St. Augustine, Pope Innocent I and Cassiodorus, and proves beyond doubt that at a given time the canonicity of the third book of Esdras was officially recognized, at least in the Western churches. About the same period, the sacred character of this book was taken for granted by the leading writers of the East, such as Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Eusebius, St. Athanasius, St. Basil, St. Chrysostom, who agree with St. Cyprian, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, and others in the West, in quoting as Holy Writ passages found nowhere except in the third book of Esdras. It is not therefore surprising to find that in presence of such unanimity of the East and of the West, up to the fifth century of our era, some writers should have affirmed that this work is truly canonical and inspired. They remark that the Catholic Church, far from rejecting it positively as apocryphal, has allowed its use and inserted it in its official edition of the Vulgate and of the Septuagint ; that by far the largest part of its contents is simply a duplicate of canonical passages in the second book of Paralipomenon and in the first and second of Esdras ; and that, finally, it is difficult to see how the fact that the writing in question has ceased to be in use since the fifth century of our era, can invalidate the earlier positive testimony in its favor. (p. 121-122)

Utilizing Gigot, Mr. Michuta provides a helpful breakdown of exactly what is contained in 1 Esdras. It is a nine chapter book that takes sections from Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah and also adds in approximately two chapter of unique material, 1 Esdras 3-5:6  (Michuta, p.239; Gigot, p.122). The text of 1 Esdras can be found here.

Gigot is an older source, yet similar findings were noted in Brill's Septuagint Commentary on 1 Esdras by Michael F. Bird. He states:

The Brill commentary also goes on to document the usage of "1 Esdras as Christian 'Scripture'." It seems highly unlikely that, given all the usage of 1 Esdras in the first five centuries of the church that Hippo and Carthage did not understand 1 Esdras to be the spurious 1 Esdras.


Addendum: A Breakdown of 1 Esdras (The Catholic Encyclopedia)

Although not belonging to the Canon of the Sacred Scriptures, this book is usually found, ne prorsus intereat, in an appendix to the editions of the Vulgate. It is made up almost entirely from materials existing in canonical books. The following scheme will show sufficiently the contents and point out the canonical parallels:

-III Esdras, i and 2 Chronicles 35, 36 — History of the Kingdom of Juda from the great Passover of Josias to the Captivity.
-III Esdras, ii, 1-15 (Greek text, 14) and I Esdras, i — Cyrus's decree. Return of Sassabasar.
-III Esdras, ii, 16 (Gr. 15)-31 (Gr. 25) and I Esdras, iv, 6-24 — Opposition to the rebuilding of the Temple.
-III Esdras, iii, 1-v, 6 — Original portion. Story of the three pages. Return of Zorobabel.
-III Esdras, v, 7-46 (Gr. 45) and I Esdras, ii — List of those returning with Zorobabel.
-III Esdras, v, 47 (Gr. 46)-73 (Gr. 70) and I Esdras, iii, 1-iv, 5 — Altar of holocausts. Foundation of the Temple laid. Opposition.
-III Esdras, vi, vii and I Esdras, v, vi — Completion of the Temple.
-III Esdras, viii, 1-ix, 36 and I Esdras, vii-x — Return of Esdras.
-III Esdras, ix, 37-56 (Gr. 55) and II Esdras, vii, 73-viii, 12 — Reading of the Law by Esdras.

The book is incomplete, and breaks off in the middle of a sentence. True, the Latin version completes the broken phrase of the Greek; but the book in its entirety probably contained also the narrative of the feast of Tabernacles (Nehemiah 8). A very strange feature in the work is its absolute disregard of chronological order; thehistory, indeed, runs directly backwards, mentioning first Artaxerxes (ii, 16-31), then Darius (iii-v, 6), finally Cyrus (v, 7-73). All this makes it difficult to detect the real object of the book and the purpose of the compiler. It has been suggested that we possess here a history of the Temple from the time of Josias down to Nehemias, and this view is well supported by the subscription of the old Latin version. Others suppose that, in the main, the book is rather an early translation of the chronicler's work, made at a time when Paralipomenon, Esdras, and Neh. still formed one continuous volume. Be this as it may, there seems to have been, up to St. Jerome, some hesitation with regard to the reception of the book into the Canon; it was freely quoted by the early Fathers, and included in Origen's "Hexapla". This might be accounted for by the fact that III Esd. may be considered as another recension of canonical Scriptures. Unquestionably our book cannot claim to be Esdras's work. From certain particulars, such as the close resemblance of the Greek with that of the translation of Daniel, some details of vocabulary, etc., scholars are led to believe that IIIEsd. was compiled, probably in Lower Egypt, during the second century B.C. Of the author nothing can be said except, perhaps, that the above-noted resemblance of style to Dan. might incline one to conclude that both works are possibly from the same hand.

Is it Prideful to Claim the Book of Judith has Historical Errors?

Originally posted on the aomin blog, 11/17/2008

Back in 2004 I attended Dr. White's debate with Catholic apologist Gary Michuta on the Apocrypha. The cross-examination period was the key moment in determining whose position actually made the most sense of the historical facts. One of the questions Dr. White asked Mr. Michuta was about the historical accuracy of the book of Judith. Judith claims Nebuchadnezzar reigned from Nineveh (Judith asserts Nebuchadnezzar was the king of Assyria, ruling from Nineveh). The problem Catholic apologists face is that the historical and Biblical evidence does not bear these claims out. Nebuchadnezzar was actually the king of Babylon, and did not rule from Nineveh.

Here is a brief MP3 clip of the actual question and answer from the 2004 debate. In Mr. Michuta's response, he assumes Judith is scripture, and appeals to problems of Biblical inerrancy as an answer. That is, non-Christian scholars have attempted numerous times to indict the Bible of an historical error, only to eat their words when either archaeology or textual analysis resolve the alleged error or contradiction. Michuta assumes the same is the case with the historical claims of Judith. He concludes that he isn't going to answer the question, because in actuality, it presupposes a non-Christian worldview. He treats Judith as an historical work. Since it is Scripture, any errors must be alleged errors.

In his book, Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger, Michuta reaffirms this method of response: "The best way out of this dilemma is not to enter it at all. Biblical inerrancy is not based upon our feeble abilities to solve every problem" (p. 322). Michuta further states, "The problem at the heart of this line of argumentation [by Protestants pointing out historical errors in the Apocrypha] is one of pride. It places the intellect in the role of judge, allowing it to sit in judgment upon the Word of God" (p. 323).

But it appears it's not only Protestants who struggle with pridefully using their intellect to judge the Bible. Those in charge of The Jerusalem Bible likewise struggle with this pride. They state, "...[H]istorically he was king of Babylon and was never styled 'king of Assyria,' and Nineveh was not his capital city." I hear the complaint already, "The Jerusalem Bible was produced by liberal Catholics." Okay, well the New Catholic Answer Bible likewise seems to have a pride problem. It states, "Any attempt to read the book directly against the backdrop of Jewish history in relation to the empires of the ancient world is bound to fail. The story was written as a pious reflection on the meaning of the yearly Passover observance" (p. 442).

But the most fascinating example of pride comes from a very recent broadcast of Catholic Answers Live. Tim Staples was asked directly about the historical errors in the book of Judith. Tim answers by stating Judith is not strict history, but is rather an extended parable, and he reluctantly uses the phrase "didactic fiction." Here is the brief MP3 clip of the actual question and answer from Catholic Answers Live. I've never done a study on this, but I wonder how many Biblical "extended parables" actually contain seemingly historical facts that are in error, but get passed over because they were not meant to be correct facts. Staples position implies that if Judith is actual history, it is indeed in error.

Tim goes on to further assert that the book of Jonah is not a historical book, but is rather a "timeless story." Ironically, Michuta chastises higher critics in his book for attacking Jonah and the rest of Scripture with charges of historical error (p.323), and by doing so I assume he considers Jonah a historical and prophetic narrative. (As an ironic aside, one of the popular Catholic charges against Luther is that he denied Jonah as history).

Michuta concludes someone with humility would simply accept the canon of Scripture as given to the Roman Catholic Church:

"It takes humility to accept the canon of Scripture as given to the Church. But once we have made such an act all the glories of the Bible open up to us. we may humbly submit our intellect to the text, sitting at the Master's feet like little children, knowing that even if the power to solve all difficulties is beyond us, there is nevertheless a solution. To do otherwise would be not only anti-Protestant (since it violates Sola Scriptura), but anti-Catholic and anti-Christian as well" (p. 323).

Catholic Answers often promotes Mr. Michuta's book as the definitive source for information about the Apocrypha. I wonder if Gary Michuta considers Tim Staples "anti-Catholic" for his position on Judith and Jonah? That would be a "Catholic Answer" I'd like to have. He probably would not. I'd probably get an answer that states since Staples doesn't treat the book as history, he doesn't fall under the condemnation of "pride."

Rome's authoritative statements on issues like this are rare, if not completely absent, so a Catholic apologist is able to affirm what another Catholic apologist denies. Where is Rome's infallible help on this issue? Is the book history or an extended parable? I think before any Catholic apologist ventures into an Apocrypha debate or offers a "Catholic Answer," perhaps they should at least figure out which genre the book is before they decide what is really prideful or humble.

Francis Beckwith: ETS Shows Sympathies for the Catholic Canon

Originally posted on the aomin blog 06/07/10

I've been fascinated by the selective use of history by those who convert to the Roman Catholic Church. Sometimes it can be attributed to ignorance. I don't expect each person making a worldview shift to have the academic abilities to weigh certain levels of complex information. On the other hand, when a PhD from Fordham University, a man who's authored numerous theological books, and taught philosophy and church-state studies appears ill-informed on basic issues of church history, I'm left with far more questions than answers about the legitimacy of that conversion story.

Francis Beckwith: ETS Shows Sympathies for the Catholic Canon
Consider the following from mega-revert Francis Beckwith's book, Return to Rome (Michigan: Brazos Press, 2009). While he served as president of the Evangelical Theological Society in 2006 the membership passed a resolution stating: "For the purpose of advising members regarding the intent and meaning of the reference to biblical inerrancy in the ETS Doctrinal Basis, the Society refers members to the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (1978)." Beckwith says, "But the Chicago Statement not only does not provide a list of canonical books, it states that 'it appears that the Old Testament canon had been fixed by the time of Jesus. The New Testament canon is likewise now closed, inasmuch as no new apostolic witness to the historical Christ can now be borne.' " The Chicago Statement is indeed accurate. The Old Testament canon was fixed during the ministry of Christ and the apostles.

This statement though from ETS provoked Beckwith to conclude, "This, ironically, means that the ETS is implicitly showing sympathies for the Catholic canon" (p.123). Rather, the irony is Beckwith's statement. Most Roman Catholics I've squabbled with over the Old Testament canon want to argue that it was still in flux during the apostolic era. The argument is presented that the Hebrew canon wasn't actually closed until very late, perhaps as late as A.D. 90-100. They argue this in order to legitimize the apocrypha. Previous to A.D. 90-100, the Greek Septuagint (the very Bible used by Christ and the Apostles) appears to have included the apocrypha.

For Beckwith, if ETS wants to affirm a closed Old Testament canon during apostolic times, they are admitting to the legitimacy of the apocrypha. Beckwith doesn't apear to be concerned with typical Roman Catholic polemic concerning an open Old Testament canon.

J.N.D Kelly: The Bulkier Old Testament Canon Included The Apocrypha
To seal the deal of this argument, Dr. Beckwith offers the following quote from Protestant scholar J.N.D. Kelly:

It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the Church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive than... the Hebrew Bible of Palestinian Judaism... It always included, though varying degrees of recognition, the so-called Apocryphal or deutero-canonical books. The reason for this is that the Old Testament which passed in the first instance into the hands of Christians was not the original Hebrew version, but the Greek translation known as the Septuagint... In the first centuries at any rate the Church seems to have accepted all, or most of, these additional books as inspired and treated them without question as Scripture.

If you Google search this quote, it proves itself to be a Roman Catholic favorite. I recall the first time I heard it being used was by Gerry Matatics against Dr. White (here's a short mp3 clip from Matatics from this debate). In response, Dr. White pointed out that current research into the Old Testament canon had reached much different conclusions than that put forth by J.N.D. Kelly.

If you actually read this section from Kelly from which Beckwith took the quote, he readily admits the Palestinian canon was "rigidly fixed". This of course, was left out by Dr. Beckwith. Kelly does indicate (though with seeming hesitation) that the Hebrew canon was finally universally closed for Judaism in A.D. 90-100 at Jamnia. During this time period he says the Jews were actually uniting against the apocryphal books. They were in the process of finally being repudiated. Kelly goes on to say this was the reason certain Christians like Melito of Sardis eventually went to Palestine to get to the bottom of the confusion of the Jewish canon. By the fourth century, the more scholarly within the Alexandrian church likewise were against the apocrypha, in varying degrees. The Western church though was much more favorable toward the apocrypha. By common use it gained acceptance.

This extra information and context from Kelly shows at least Beckwith didn't read him carefully. Kelly argues for a fixed Palestinian canon during apostolic times, with the apocryphal books in the larger Greek canon being eventually repudiated by the Jews later in the first century. Kelly's quote does though still serve Romanist argumentation. If in fact no specific Hebrew canon was fixed for Judaism as a whole, how does one know that Jesus and the Apostles did not use and revere the apocrypha? If the Bible they used included it, and Christ deemed his church the only organization capable of infallible dogmatic proclamation, the fallible Jews late in the first century finalized a fallible collection of infallible books. They left out the apocrypha. Protestants therefore follow the fallible tradition of the Jews rather than the infallible Tradition of the Roman Catholic Church.

This Romanist methodology though is flawed in a number of ways.

What Books Were in the Septuagint?
Sometimes the error isn't what's said, it's what isn't said. Indeed, if one surveys the oldest extant copies and fragments of the Septuagint, one will find apocryphal books. That should settle it for the Roman Catholic side, shouldn't it? Hardly. William Webster explains:

One of the reasons Roman Catholics argue for a broader canon is that the oldest extant manuscripts of the Septuagint do contain a number of Apocryphal books. These manuscripts are: Vaticanus (early 4th century), Sinaiticus (early 4th century), and Alexandrinus (early 5th century). The Apocryphal books of Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Judith and Tobit are included in all three, but there are also differences. Vaticanus does not include any of the Maccabean books, while Sinaiticus includes 1 and 4 Maccabees and Alexandrinus includes 1, 2, 3, and 4 Maccabees and a work known as the Psalms of Solomon. If inclusion of a book in the manuscript proves its canonicity, as Roman Catholics assert, then 3 and 4 Maccabees were canonical. However, we know with certainty that this was not the case. It is also true that the Septuagint included a number of appendices to the canonical Old Testament books such as Esther, 1 Esdras, the additions to Daniel (Song of the Three Children, Bel and the Dragon and Susanna), and the additions to Jeremiah (Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremy). But as Henry Swete points out, none of these books, or the rest of the Apocrypha, were part of the Hebrew canon:

The MSS. and many of the lists of the Greek Old Testament include certain books which find no place in the Hebrew Canon. The number of these books varies, but the fullest collections contain the following: I Esdras, Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Sirach, Judith, Tobit, Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah, i.-iv. Maccabees. We may add the Psalms of Solomon, a book which was sometimes included in MSS. of Salomonic books, or, in complete Bibles, at the end of the Canon.

The only Septuagint manuscript evidence we have now was created by the Christian church. Webster notes: "We do not know for certain that the Septuagint itself included the books of the Apocrypha as canonical Scripture. Secondly... there were books in these manuscripts that were never considered canonical by the Jews or the Church, in particular, 3 and 4 Maccabees. Therefore, just because a book was listed in the manuscripts did not mean it was canonical. It simply means that these books were read in the Church." Webster cites Lee McDonald who notes,

The biggest problem with the theory of the Alexandrian canon is that there are no lists or collections one can look to in order to see what books comprised it. Pfeiffer himself acknowledged that no one knows what the canon of the Alexandrian and other Diaspora Jews was before the LXX was condemned in Palestine, ca. 130 CE. Long ago E. Reuss concluded that we know nothing about the LXX before the time when the church made extensive use of it. That includes the condition of the text and its form as well as its extent. Another problem with the Alexandrian canon theory is that it has not been shown conclusively that the Alexandrian Jews or the other Jews of the Dispersion were any more likely to adopt other writings as sacred scriptures than were the Jews Palestine in the two centuries BCE and the first century CE. Further, there is no evidence as yet that shows the existence of a different canon of scriptures in Alexandria than in Palestine from the second century BCE to the second century CE. Since the communications between Jerusalem and Alexandria were considered quite good during the first century BCE and CE, it is not certain that either the notion or extent of divine scripture would be strikingly different between the two locations during the period before 70 CE. Although the Jews of the Dispersion were more affected by Hellenism than were the Jews of Palestine, there is little evidence to show that this influence also affected their notion of scripture or the boundaries of their scriptures.

When Dr. Beckwith assumes the Septuagint used during the Apostolic era included the apocrypha, that's indeed what it is, an assumption. There isn't historical evidence to verify the claim.

Dr. Beckwith, Meet R.T. Beckwith
Francis Beckwith probably should know the closed Hebrew canon was divided into three major categories: Law, the Prophets, and the Hagiographa. He did approvingly cite J.N.D. Kelly, and Kelly argues for a fixed Hebrew canon. When Jesus and the apostles appealed to Scripture, they had a specific set of books in view. Biblical and historical testimony affirm this. This threefold specific set of books did not contain the apocrypha. Commenting on this, R.T. Beckwith describes the argument of those who disagree with these facts:

Doubt has sometimes been cast, for inadequate reasons, on the antiquity of this way of [threefold] grouping the Old Testament books. More commonly, but with equally little real reason, it has been assumed that it reflects the gradual development of the Old Testament canon, the grouping having been a historical accident and the canon of the Prophets having been closed about the third century B.c., before a history like Chronicles and a prophecy like Daniel (which, it is alleged, naturally belong there) had been recognized as inspired or perhaps even written. The canon of the Hagiographa, according to this popular hypothesis, was not closed until the Jewish synod of Jamnia or Jabneh about A.D. 90, after an open Old Testament canon had already been taken over by the Christian church. Moreover, a broader canon, containing much of the Apocrypha, had been accepted by the Greek-speaking Jews of Alexandria, and was embodied in the Septuagint; and the Septuagint was the Old Testament of the early Christian church. These two facts, perhaps together with the Essene fondness for the pseudonymous apocalypses, are responsible for the fluidity of the Old Testament canon in patristic Christianity. Such is the theory.

Beckwith spends a considerable time demonstrating the historical evidence demonstrates the unity and closure of the threefold Old Testament canon, comprising a specific set of twenty-two books. He then describes the Septuagint and the broader canon:

How, then, has it come to be thought that the third section of the canon was not closed until the synod of Jamnia, some decades after the birth of the Christian church? The main reasons are that the rabbinical literature records disputes about five of the books, some of which were settled at the Jamnia discussion; that many of the Septuagint manuscripts mix apocryphal books among the canonical, thus prompting the theory of a wider Alexandrian canon; and that the Qumran discoveries show the apocalyptic pseudepigrapha to have been cherished, and perhaps reckoned canonical, by the Essenes. But the rabbinical literature records similar, though more readily answered, academic objections to many other canonical books, so it must have been a question of removing books from the list (had this been possible), not adding them. Moreover, one of the five disputed books (Ezekiel) belongs to the second section of the canon, which is admitted to have been closed long before the Christian era. As to the Alexandrian canon, Philo of Alexandria's writings show it to have been the same as the Palestinian. He refers to the three familiar sections, and he ascribes inspiration to many books in all three, but never to any of the Apocrypha. In the Septuagint manuscripts, the Prophets and Hagiographa have been rearranged by Christian hands in a non-Jewish manner, and the intermingling of Apocrypha there is a Christian phenomenon, not a Jewish one. At Qumran the pseudonymous apocalypses were more likely viewed as an Essene appendix to the standard Jewish canon than as an integral part of it. There are allusions to this appendix in Philo's account of the Therapeutae (De Vita Contemplativa 25) and in 2 Esdras 14:44-48. An equally significant fact discovered at Qumran is that the Essenes, though at rivalry with mainstream Judaism since the second century B.c., reckoned as canonical some of the Hagiographa and had presumably done so since before the rivalry began.

The Septuagint manuscripts are paralleled by the writings of the early Christian Fathers, who (at any rate outside Palestine and Syria) normally used the Septuagint or the derived Old Latin version. In their writings, there is both a wide and a narrow canon. The former comprises those books from before the time of Christ which were generally read and esteemed in the church (including the Apocrypha), but the latter is confined to the books of the Jewish Bible, which scholars like Melito, Origen, Epiphanius, and Jerome take the trouble to distinguish from the rest as alone inspired. The Apocrypha were known in the church from the start, but the further back one goes, the more rarely are they treated as inspired. In the New Testament itself, one finds Christ acknowledging the Jewish Scriptures, by various of their current titles, and accepting the three sections of the Jewish canon and the traditional order of its books; one finds most of the books being referred to individually as having divine authority- but not so for any of the Apocrypha. The only apparent exceptions are found in Jude: Jude 9 (citing the apocryphal work, The Assumption of Moses) and Jude 14, citing Enoch. Jude's citation of these works does not mean he believed they were divinely inspired, just as Paul's citation of various Greek poets (see Acts 17:28; 1 Cor. 15:33; Tit. 1:12) does not attribute divine inspiration to their poetry.

What evidently happened in the early centuries of Christianity was this: Christ passed on to his followers, as Holy Scriptures, the Bible which he had received, containing the same books as the Hebrew Bible today. The first Christians shared with their Jewish contemporaries a full knowledge of the identity of the canonical books. However, the Bible was not yet between two covers: it was a memorized list of scrolls. The breach with Jewish oral tradition (in some matters a very necessary breach), the alienation between Jew and Christian, and the general ignorance of Semitic languages in the church outside Palestine and Syria, led to increasing doubt concerning the canon among Christians, which was accentuated by the drawing up of new lists of the biblical books, arranged on other principles, and the introduction of new lectionaries. Such doubt about the canon could only be resolved today, in the way it was resolved at the Reformation- by returning to the teaching of the New Testament and the Jewish background against which it is to be understood [R.T. Beckwith, "The Canon of the Old Testament" in Phillip Comfort, The Origin of the Bible (Wheaton: Tyndale House, 2003) pp. 57-64].

Perhaps in Dr. Beckwith's zeal to convert, he didn't get a chance to read the materials put out by the other Dr. Beckwith. The other Dr. Beckwith's major work on the Old Testament canon is entitled, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985). While no longer in print, it is available in electronic form from Logos. I've only presented a sparse overview. The extent of the Old Testament canon is much more complicated than simply posting an edited snippet from J.N.D. Kelly. Perhaps if Francis Beckwith revises Return to Rome, we can look forward to sympathy for the actual Old Testament canon fixed by the time of Jesus and the apostles.

Did Jerome Change His Mind on the Apocrypha ?

Here's an old post written by my friend Ray Aviles. I originally posted it 06/14/06.

By Ray Aviles

There’s an argument going around the Catholic apologetic circles claiming that Jerome changed his position on the Apocrypha later in his life. That he came to accept these books as inspired because of the “judgment of the churches” on this matter. Furthermore, they claim the evidence of this lies in his citing these books using the word “Scripture” to define them. RC apologist Mark Shea provides an example of this in an Envoy Magazine article (found here: http://www.envoymagazine.com/backissues/1.2/marapril_story2.html). He writes:

"In his later years St. Jerome did indeed accept the Deuterocanonical books of the Bible. In fact, he wound up strenuously defending their status as inspired Scripture, writing, "What sin have I committed if I followed the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susanna, the Son of the Three Children, and the story of Bel and the Dragon, which are not found in the Hebrew volume (ie. canon), proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. For I wasn't relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they [the Jews] are wont to make against us" (Against Rufinus 11:33 [A.D. 402]). In earlier correspondence with Pope Damasus, Jerome did not call the deuterocanonical books unscriptural, he simply said that Jews he knew did not regard them as canonical. But for himself, he acknowledged the authority of the Church in defining the canon. When Pope Damasus and the Councils of Carthage and Hippo included the deuterocanon in Scripture, that was good enough for St. Jerome. He "followed the judgment of the churches."

Shea not only claims that Jerome accepted them, but that he “strenuously” defended them. A word used to intrigue the reader, but there is no evidence that he defended them, let alone “strenuously.” Furthermore, from the citation above, he states that Jerome followed the “judgment of the churches”, which Shea translates as the synods of Hippo and Carthage, but he is mistaken. Contextually, the “judgment of the churches” refers to Theodotion’s translation of Daniel which the churches were using instead of the Septuagint version. To add to this, he couldn’t have followed Carthage considering they met 17 years after Jerome penned the above. Both Hippo and Carthage were regional councils, didn’t speak for the entire church, thus it wasn’t mandated that Jerome submit to their decisions. Yet, it was Theodotion’s version Jerome refers to when he mentions the “judgment of the churches” and not their decision on canon:

"In reference to Daniel my answer will be that I did not say that he was not a prophet; on the contrary, I confessed in the very beginning of the Preface that he was a prophet. But I wished to show what was the opinion upheld by the Jews; and what were the arguments on which they relied for its proof. 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 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 baring 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 free 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.

The issue was Theodotion’s (a known heretic) translation of Daniel which was being used by the churches. The translation was faulty, wasn’t based on the Septuagint, and condemned by the “right judgment of the churches”, but the reader can see that this in no way applies to the decision on canon made at the local councils of Hippo and Carthage.

Jerome goes on to say that he is merely stating Jewish opinion against these books. Although this was the view he espoused, he was not the originator, and it put him in the uncomfortable position of arguing with the Jews on this. J.N.D. Kelly expounds:

"Jerome, conscious of the difficulty of arguing with Jews on the basis of books they spurned and anyhow regarding the Hebrew original as authoritative, was adamant that anything not found in it was ‘to be classed among the apocrypha’, not in the canon; later he grudgingly conceded that the Church read some of these books for edification, but not to support doctrine." [J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (San Francisco: Harper, 1960), p. 55].

He was further riled by the fact that the churches followed the translation of a known heretic instead of a Christian such as himself. As an aside, Shea wrongfully associates Pope Damasus as being in agreement with the alleged “decision” at Hippo and Carthage, but Damasus died in 384 A.D, nine years before Hippo (393) and thirteen years before Carthage (397).

Shea continues with the usual RC apologetic misrepresentations against Martin Luther, naming him as the culprit who excluded the deuterocanonicals (Jim Swan did a wonderful job of putting the proper perspective on Luther and the canon here) Yet, I’ve always found this to be odd reasoning considering the Roman Catholic canon wasn’t decided until Trent. Cardinal Cajetan (the same one who opposed Luther) and Cardinal Ximenes, both contemporaries of the era, wrote against the canonicity of these books as well. Further, there was opposition within Trent regarding these books, spearheaded by the group led by Giralamo Cardinal Seripando (for more information on this, read Hubert Jedin’s Cardinal Seripando, Papal Legate at Trent). The mere fact that there was opposition at Trent substantiates that no canon was in effect where the “judgment of the churches” would authoritatively bind the Catholic to the decision at Hippo and Carthage.

Shea reiterates his error here:

"As St. Jerome said, it is upon the basis of "the judgment of the churches" and no other that the canon of Scripture is known, since the Scriptures are simply the written portion of the Church's apostolic tradition."

Again, Shea is embellishing Jerome’s statements regarding the “judgment of the churches” to mean something that it isn’t. As I’ve already shown, contextually, Jerome is saying something else entirely. Yet, Shea isn’t the only one who tries to make Jerome pro-deuteros. Some Catholic apologists play more loosely with Jerome’s words. An apologist who calls himself “Matt1618” asserts in his internet article “Did Some Church Fathers Reject the Deuterocanonicals as Scripture” (found here: http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/deut.html) that Jerome did indeed show an acceptance of these books because he never denied them inspiration and he called them “Scripture” in his later writings. This is merely “reading between the lines” in an attempt to find something more favorable to his position. He states:

"In fact it is true that none of the Fathers, even St. Jerome, ever deny their inspiration."

I don’t know how “Matt1618” would define this “denial”, but all this amounts to wishful thinking. To put it simply, what Jerome states in his prefaces and commentaries amounts to a denial of their inspiration as well as their canonicity. To put it plainly, if Jerome states that a book isn’t canonical it is only because Jerome doesn’t believe it is inspired. Scripture is “God-breathed” and men wrote as they were inspired of God. Inspired books are in the canon because they came from the very mouth of God. It defeats the purpose of the canon if some “God-breathed” Scriptures are included and others aren’t. If a book is not in the canon, it is because it is not inspired. In essence, “Matt1618” is implying that Jerome didn’t see “inspiration” as the criterion for inclusion into the canon and that a book can be “inspired” and “Scripture” and, for whatever reasons, be outside of the canon. In his commentary on Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus, Jerome states:

"As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it also read these two Volumes (Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus) for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church."

According to Jerome, these books are ecclesiastical, capable of spiritual teaching, but cannot be used for supporting church doctrine. This begs the question: Since when is known Scripture not to be used for supporting doctrine? Even Scripture itself attests:

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works (2 Timothy 3:16-17).
Furthermore, Jerome, emphatically states in his preface to the books of Samuel and Kings:

"This preface to the Scriptures may serve as a "helmeted" introduction to all the books which we 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, therefore, which generally bears the name of Solomon, and the book of Jesus, the Son of Sirach, and Judith, and Tobias, and the Shepherd are not in the canon."

In his preface to the Daniel he states:

"I say this to show you how hard it is to master the book of Daniel, which in Hebrew contains neither the history of Susanna, nor the hymn of the three youths, nor the fables of Bel and the Dragon; because, however, they are to be found everywhere, we have formed them into an appendix, prefixing to them an obelus, and thus making an end of them, so as not to seem to the uninformed to have cut off a large portion of the volume."

Four things are to be noted here. The first being that the additions weren’t in the Hebrew Scriptures; secondly, that Jerome calls Bel and the Dragon a “fable”; thirdly, that they were appended to his Vulgate; and fourthly, that they were marked with an “obelus” which is a critical symbol used in ancient manuscripts to mark a questionable passage. Nothing here reveals any indication that Jerome held, at least, the additions to be inspired Scripture.

Again, to Jerome, the extra books were “…not to give authority to the doctrines of the Church” and they “…are not in the canon.” Attempting to draw skepticism by claiming that he didn’t call them “uninspired” is leading the reader at best. Sure, they have some ecclesiastical value within them, but a book doesn’t need to be inspired or canonical to have ecclesiastical value. Although there are other passages from his writings that I can cite, I believe these suffice in showing that Jerome did not believe the Apocryphal books were inspired.

Next, “Matt1618” states there is evidence that Jerome did indeed cite these books and cited them “…approximately 55 times.” This is easy to refute. After all, if Paul can cite pagan writers such as Menander, Epimenedes, or Aratus, I’m sure Jerome can cite from these books which he claimed were good for the edification of the church as well as others. But “Matt 1618” goes further and says that he cited them as Scripture. He then goes to give a few selected quotes from Jerome:

(I am citing from his article, my comments are in black fonts and brackets)

Does not the SCRIPTURE say: 'Burden not thyself above thy power' [SIRACH 13:2] Jerome, To Eustochium, Epistle 108 (A.D. 404), in NPNF2, VI:207 [* Matt1618 is correct, Jerome does call this verse from Sirach “Scripture”, but one must question if what he means is in the “inspired” sense. Considering he has already stated that “Ecclesiasticus” (Sirach) is not to be used doctrinally (see above) we can assume that this is not the case]

Do not, my dearest brother, estimate my worth by the number of my years. Gray hairs are not wisdom; it is wisdom which is as good as gray hairs At least that is what Solomon says: "wisdom is the gray hair unto men.’ [Wisdom 4:9]" Moses too in choosing the seventy elders is told to take those whom he knows to be elders indeed, and to select them not for their years but for their discretion (Num. 11:16)? And, as a boy, Daniel judges old men and in the flower of youth condemns the incontinence of age (Daniel 13:55-59, or Story of Susannah 55-59, only found in the Catholic Bibles) Jerome, To Paulinus, Epistle 58 (A.D. 395), in NPNF2, VI:119 [* Matt1618 is reading too much into this citation, although he “cites” these books, citing them doesn’t mean he viewed them as “Scripture”, especially in light of the fact that he stated the books can be used “ecclesiastically”]

"I would cite the words of the psalmist: 'the sacrifices of God are a broken spirit,’ [Ps 51:17] and those of Ezekiel 'I prefer the repentance of a sinner rather than his death,’ [Ez 18:23] AND THOSE OF BARUCH,'Arise, arise, O Jerusalem,’ [Baruch 5:5] AND MANY OTHER PROCLAMATIONS MADE BY THE TRUMPETS OF THE PROPHETS." Jerome, To Oceanus, Epistle 77:4 (A.D. 399), in NPNF2, VI:159 [* Same as above]

[It is true that a festival such as the birthday of Saint Peter should be seasoned with more gladness than usual;] still our merriment must not forget the limit set by Scripture, and we must not stray too far from the boundary of our wrestling-ground. Your presents, indeed, remind me of the sacred volume, for in it Ezekiel decks Jerusalem with bracelets, (Eze. 16:11) Baruch receives letters from Jeremiah,(Jer. 36, Bar. 6) and the Holy Spirit descends in the form of a dove at the baptism of Christ.(Mt. 3:16) Jerome, To Eustochium, Epistle 31:2 (A.D. 384), in NPNF2, VI:45 [* In the beginning brackets, I added what “Matt1618” left out considering this adds context to the passage. If I would’ve left it exactly as he cited it, then it would seem as if this is one thought. However, the first “Scripture” is within the context of the festival of St. Peter. The second “sacred volume” is in the context of the presents given to Jerome. These are two thought and not one. Thus, when he cites Baruch, he isn’t specifically calling it Scripture and, again, Jerome could be citing it for its ecclesiastical value].

As in good works it is God who brings them to perfection, for it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that pitieth and gives us help that we may be able to reach the goal: so in things wicked and sinful, the seeds within us give the impulse, and these are brought to maturity by the devil. When he sees that we are building upon the foundation of Christ, hay, wood, stubble, then he applies the match. Let us then build gold, silver, costly stones, and he will not venture to tempt us: although even thus there is not sure and safe possession. For the lion lurks in ambush to slay the innocent. [Sir. 27:5] "Potters' vessels are proved by the furnace, and just men by the trial of tribulation." And in another place it is written: [Sir. 2:1] "My son, when thou comest to serve the Lord, prepare thyself for temptation." Again, the same James says: [James 3:22]"Be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only. For if any one is a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a mirror: for he beholdeth himself, and goeth away, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was." It was useless to warn them to add works to faith, if they could not sin after baptism. Jerome, Against Jovinianus, Book 2, 3 NPNF2, VI:390 [* Matt1618 makes the assumption that Jerome’s usage of the phrase “it is written” is being used in the biblical sense—that there is an air of Scriptural credibility within this phrase—but he never stops to think if Jerome simply meant that these citations were “written”, nothing more and nothing less).

"Yet the Holy Spirit in the thirty-ninth(9) psalm, while lamenting that all men walk in a vain show, and that they are subject to sins, speaks thus: "For all that every man walketh in the image."(Psalm 39:6) Also after David's time, in the reign of Solomon his son, we read a somewhat similar reference to the divine likeness. For in the book of Wisdom, WHICH IS INSCRIBED WITH HIS NAME, SOLOMON SAYS: "GOD CREATED MAN TO BE IMMORTAL, AND MADE HIM TO BE AN IMAGE OF HIS OWN ETERNITY."(Wisdom 2:23) And again, about eleven hundred and eleven years afterwards, we read in the New Testament that men have not lost the image of God. For James, an apostle and brother of the Lord, whom I have mentioned above--that we may not be entangled in the snares of Origen--teaches us that man does possess God's image and likeness. For, after a somewhat discursive account of the human tongue, he has gone on to say of it: "It is an unruly evil ... therewith bless we God, even the Father and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God."(James 3:8-9) Paul, too, the "chosen vessel,"(Acts 9:15) who in his preaching has fully maintained the doctrine of the gospel, instructs us that man is made in the image and after the likeness of God. "A man," he says, "ought not to wear long hair, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God."(1 Cor. 11:7) He speaks of "the image" simply, but explains the nature of the likeness by the word "glory."

7. Instead of THE THREE PROOFS FROM HOLY SCRIPTURE which you said would satisfy you if I could produce them, BEHOLD I HAVE GIVEN YOU SEVEN"--- Jerome, Letter 51, NPNF2, VI:87-8 [* In context, Jerome gives more then seven Scriptures within this passage and there is no way of telling whether the citation from Wisdom is amongst the “seven”, but for the sake of argument we’ll give it the benefit of the doubt. I don’t know why “Matt1618”capitalizes “which is inscribed with his name” and I can only hope he isn’t implying that “his name” refers to God, thus indicating inspiration. On the contrary, this evidently refers to Solomon who it is said wrote this book].

A. "Your argument is ingenious, but you do not see THAT IT GOES AGAINST HOLY SCRIPTURE, which declares that even ignorance is not without sin. Hence it was that Job offered sacrifices for his sons, test, perchance, they had unwittingly sinned in thought. And if, when one is cutting wood, the axe-head flies from the handle and kills a man, the owner is[Num. 35:8] commanded to go to one of the cities of refuge and stay there until the high priest dies; that is to say, until he is redeemed by the Saviour's blood, either in the baptistery, or in penitence which is a copy of the grace of baptism, through the ineffable mercy of the Saviour, who[Ezek. 18:23] would not have any one perish, nor delights in the death of sinners, but would rather that they should be converted and live. C. It is surely strange justice to hold me guilty of a sin of error of which my conscience does not accuse itself. I am not aware that I have sinned, and am I to pay the penalty for an offence of which I am ignorant? What more can I do, if I sin voluntarily?
A. DO YOU EXPECT ME TO EXPLAIN THE PURPOSES AND PLANS OF GOD? THE BOOK OF WISDOM GIVES AN ANSWER TO YOUR FOOLISH QUESTION: [Sir 3:21] "LOOK NOT INTO THINGS ABOVE THEE, AND SEARCH NOT THINGS TOO MIGHTY FOR THEE." AND ELSEWHERE,[5] "Make not thyself overwise, and argue not more than is fitting." And in the same place, "In wisdom and simplicity of heart seek God." You will perhaps deny the authority of this book;" "Jerome, "Against the Pelagians, NPNF2, VI:464-5" [* He submits these together, but anyone can see that when Jerome refers to Scripture in the passage, he is referring to canonical Scripture (Job, Numbers, and Ezekiel). The citation from Sirach is independent of the above citation and there is no indication that Jerome cites it as Scripture].
"And in the proverbs Solomon tells us that as "the north wind driveth away rain, so doth an angry countenance a backbiting tongue.(Prov. 25:23)" It sometimes happens that an arrow when it is aimed at a hard object rebounds upon the bowman, wounding the would-bewounder, and thus, the words are fulfilled, "they were turned aside like a deceitful bow," (Psalm 128:57) and in another passage: "whoso casteth a stone on high casteth it on his own head." (Sir. 27:25) Jerome, To Rusticus, Epistle 125, 19 (A.D. 404), in NPNF2, VI:251 [* Again, although Sirach is used in context alongside Scripture, it doesn’t prove much, especially in light of ecclesiastical usage]
9. Let me call to my aid the example of the three children, (Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego in Daniel 3) who, amid the cool, encircling fire, sang hymns, (Song of Three Holy Children, found only in Deuterocanonical portion of Daniel 3) instead of weeping, and around whose turbans and holy hair the flames played harmlessly. Let me recall, too, the story of the blessed Daniel, in whose presence, though he was their natural prey, the lions crouched, with fawning tails and frightened mouths.(Daniel 6) Let Susannah also rise in the nobility of her faith before the thoughts of all; who, after she had been condemned by an unjust sentence, was saved through a youth inspired by the Holy Ghost (Susanna 45, or Daniel 13:45). In both cases the Lord's mercy was alike shewn; for while Susannah was set free by the judge, so as not to die by the sword, this woman, though condemned by the judge, was acquitted by the sword. Jerome, Letter 1:9, NPNF2, VI:2 [* Jerome cites the additions to Daniel, but this doesn’t mean he cited this as inspired Scripture and not ecclesiastically]
6. I salute your mother and mine with the respect which, as you know, I feel towards her. Associated with you as she is in a holy life, she has the start of you, her holy children, in that she is your mother. Her womb may thus be truly called golden. With her I salute your sisters, who ought all to be welcomed wherever they go, for they have triumphed over their sex and the world, and await the Bridegroom's coming, (Mt. 25:4) their lamps replenished with oil. O happy the house which is a home of a widowed Anna, of virgins that are prophetesses, and of twin Samuels bred in the Temple! (Luke 2:36, Acts 21:9, 1 Sam. 2:18) Fortunate the roof which shelters the martyr-mother of the Maccabees, with her sons around her, each and all wearing the martyr's crown! (2 Macc. 7) For although you confess Christ every day by keeping His commandments, yet to this private glory you have added the public one of an open confession; for it was through you that the poison of the Arian heresy was formerly banished from your city. Jerome, to Chromatius, Jovinus, and Eusebius, Letter 7:6, NPNF2, VI:10 [* Jerome cited a historical fact which happens to be recorded in 2 Maccabees 7. Citing history doesn’t make the history book “Scripture”]
But now that a virgin has conceived (Isa. 7:14) in the womb and has borne to us a child of which the prophet says that "Government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called the mighty God, the everlasting Father," (Isa. 9:6) now the chain of the curse is broken. Death came through Eve, but life has come through Mary. And thus the gift of virginity has been bestowed most richly upon women, seeing that it has had its beginning from a woman. As soon as the Son of God set foot upon the earth, He formed for Himself a new household there; that, as He was adored by angels in heaven, angels might serve Him also on earth. Then chaste Judith once more cut off the head of Holofernes (Jud. 13).Then Haman--whose name means iniquity--was once more burned in fire of his own kindling (Est. 7:10) Then James and John forsook father and net and ship and followed the Saviour: neither kinship nor the world's ties, nor the care of their home could hold them back. Then were the words heard: "Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me." (Mark 8:34) For no soldier goes with a wife to battle. Even when a disciple would have buried his father, the Lord forbade him, and said: "Foxes have holes and the birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man hath not where to lay His head." (Mt. 8:20-22) So you must not complain if you have but scanty house-room. In the same strain, the apostle writes: "He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord but he that is married careth for the things that are of the world how he may please his wife. There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord that she may be holy both in body and in spirit. But she that is married careth for the things of the world how she may please her husband." (1 Cor. 7:34-36). Jerome, to Eustochium, Letter 22:21, NPNF2, VI:30 [* Again, citing an apocryphal book doesn’t mean that Jerome viewed it as “Scripture” when he could be using it ecclesiastically]
For it is not ecclesiastical rank that makes a man a Christian. The centurion Cornelius was still a heathen when he was cleansed by the gift of the Holy Spirit. Daniel was but a child when he judged the elders.( Dan. 13:55-63, or Susanna 55-63) Amos was stripping mulberry bushes when, in a moment, he was made a prophet (Amos 7:14) David was only a shepherd when he was chosen to be king.(2 Sam. 16:11-13) And the least of His disciples was the one whom Jesus loved the most. My brother, sit down in the lower room, that when one less honorable comes you may be bidden to go up higher (Luke 14:10). Jerome, to Heliodorus, Letter 14:9, NPNF2, VI:17. [* Jerome refers to a history recorded in Susanna. Again, nothing that would place Jerome as citing inspired Scripture]
These things, dearest daughter in Christ, I impress upon you and frequently repeat, that you may forget those things which are behind and reach forth unto those things which are before (Phil. 3:12). You have widows like yourself worthy to be your models, Judith renowned in Hebrew story (Jud. 13) and Anna the daughter of Phanuel (Lk 2) famous in the gospel. Both these lived day and night in the temple and preserved the treasure of their chastity by prayer and by fasting. One was a type of the Church which cuts off the head of the devil (Jud. 13:8) and the other first received in her arms the Saviour of the world and had revealed to her the holy mysteries which were to come (Lk 2:36-38). Jerome, to Salvina, Letter 79:10, NPNF2, VI:168 [* Jerome explicitly calls the Judith account a “Hebrew story”, but the account of Phanuel in Luke 2 he calls “the gospel.” If he were citing them both as Scripture, why classify Judith this way and contrast it to a gospel account? I think the answer is obvious].
To summarize, “Matt1618” has only one instance of Jerome calling an Apocryphal book “Scripture”, maybe two if we ease up a bit and include Jerome, Letter 51, NPNF2, VI:87-8. Yet, in neither of these instances do we have anything which would enthrall the reader into believing he accepted these books as inspired Scripture. J.N.D. Kelly sheds light on Jerome’s usage of these books and his usage of the word Scripture:
Jerome’s conversion to ‘the Hebrew verity’ [i.e. in contrast to the LXX] carried with it an important corollary—his acceptance also of the Hebrew canon, or list of books properly belonging to the Old Testament. Since the early Church had read its Old Testament in Greek, it had taken over without question the so-called Alexandrian canon used in the Greek-speaking Jewish communities outside Palestine. This had included those books (Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Judith, etc.) which are variously described as deuterocanonical or as the Apocrypha. Around the end of the first century, however, official Judaism had formally excluded these, limiting the canon to the books which figure in English Bibles as the Old Testament proper. Since Origen’s time it had been recognised that there was a distinction between the Jewish canon and the list acknowledged by Christians, but most writers preferred to place the popular and widely used deutero-canonical books in a special category (e.g. calling them ‘ecclesiastical’) rather than to discard them. Jerome now takes a much firmer line. After enumerating the ‘twenty-two’ (or perhaps twenty-four) books recognised by the Jews, he decrees that any books outside this list must be reckoned ‘apocryphal’: ‘They are not in the canon.’ Elsewhere, while admitting that the Church reads books like Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus which are strictly uncanonical, he insists on their being used solely ‘for edifying the people, not for the corroboration of ecclesiastical’. This was the attitude which, with temporary concessions for tactical or other reasons, he was to maintain for the rest of his life—in theory at any rate, for in practice he continued to cite them as if they were Scripture. Again what chiefly moved him was the embarrassment he felt at having to argue with Jews on the basis of books which they rejected or even (e.g. the stories of Susanna, or of Bel and the Dragon) found frankly ridiculous. J. N. D. Kelly, Jerome: His Life, Writings, and Controversies (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2000), pp. 160-161.
RC apologists, those who argue this way, are merely using sophistry to recreate Jerome and place him on the side of the Deuterocanonicals, but the evidence really doesn’t give them much to stand on. I guess this is due to the fact that Jerome is one of the Doctors of the Church and he happened to disagree that these books were inspired Scripture. It is a source of embarrassment to them so they attempt to salvage whatever they can and find themselves reading “between the lines” of his writings in a futile attempt to win him back. There is no record showing that Jerome had a change of heart regarding these books and the very fact that scholarly clergymen, such as the aforementioned Cardinals, used Jerome’s position as a catalyst for their own disagreements with these books shows an understanding that he never wavered, never changed his position. But some RC apologists choose to blind themselves from the facts.
In conclusion, Augustine, who was a contemporary of Jerome, advocated the Apocryphal books and used his weighty suffrage to influence the African synods (Hippo and Carthage), but his appeal to them was strictly emotional and, as evidenced in the City of God, he used folklore to gain acceptance of these books. Regarding canon issues and languages, it was Jerome who was the canon scholar and not Augustine. In their correspondence on the issue of the Latin translation (dated 404 AD), Jerome chides Augustine for misunderstanding the nuances of his translations (see here: http://www.bible-researcher.com/vulgate2.html). Augustine chose not to side with Jerome, but continued to push the Septuagint over the Hebrew, even though the Septuagint itself was translated into Greek from the Hebrew. Augustine’s adherence to the LXX was based on the story of the “Seventy” which were the 72 Jewish translators who translated the Hebrew into the Greek language. Augustine tells the story of how these men worked separately in cells and when they compared their manuscripts, they were uniform in every detail, word for word. Jerome calls the story of the cells “fables” and made up, but Augustine claimed that because they worked under the same Spirit, they were led in this endeavor, thus proving the LXX to be of God. What Augustine either didn’t understand or ignored is that the “Seventy” only translated the first 5 books of Moses, the Pentateuch. In the website “The Septuagint Online” states:
Philo of Alexandria (fl. 1st c CE) confirms that only the Torah was commissioned to be translated, and some modern scholars have concurred, noting a kind of consistency in the style of the Greek Penteteuch [sic]. Over the course of the next three centuries, however, other books of the Hebrew Scriptures were translated into Greek in an order that is not altogether clear. By observing technical terms and translation styles, by comparing the Greek versions to the Dead Sea Scrolls, and by comparing them to Hellenistic literature, scholars are trying to stitch together a history of the translations that eventually found their way into collections. It seems that sometimes a Hebrew book was translated more than once, or that a particular Greek translation was revised. In other cases, a work was composed afresh in Greek, yet was included in the collection of scriptures (from http://www.kalvesmaki.com/LXX/index.htm)
Only the Pentateuch was translated by the “Seventy” and Augustine truly had no clear reasoning in accepting the Septuagint and the books not found in the Hebrew text. It would seem he influence men through the use of quaint myths or hearsay, but as for Jerome he was resolute and never changed his mind, never follow a “decision” made by the councils influenced by Augustine and, most obviously, he never felt the need to. Jerome denied both the inspiration and the canonicity of the added books and no amount of historical revision will change the facts.