"This brings us back to who the scriptures claim wrote the prophecies."
John here are some historical facts to consider. If you question their legitamate source, I can give sources if you will avow to verify them.
Denying with a bunch of bible quotes is not desired. First a few definitions to make things clear with terms used.
Canon of Scripture
Canon, from the Greek "kanon," refers to the measure used in a given locale to indicate the authoritative unit of distance for that
region. The "Canon of Scripture" is the set of books containing the ideas by which people in the Christian faith live, especially with
regard to their religious lives. The traditional Jewish canon was divided into twenty four books in three categories: The Torah, The
NeviÕim, and the Kethuvim. On the other hand, Catholics have four divisions: Pentateuch, Historical Books, Wisdom Writings,
and Prophets. Today, we are unsure whether a NT book was ultimately determined to be "canonical" because of its orthodox
content, its connection to the apostles, or the signs of its divine inspiration. We can most likely assume that these books entered
into the canon because of its inspirational content; that is, books that inspired genuine faith in the lives of Christians were said to be
inspired and hence canonical.
Canonicity deals with the formation of the canon. A textual canon (from the Greek kanon, meaning yardstick or ruler) is a
collection of work/stories that are known as authoritative and that have meaning for a community of people. The big debate of the
early Christian centuries was who was going to decide what went into the canon (Bible), and the criteria by which this decision
would be made. Ultimately, it was primarily bishops who debated and concluded this discussion.
In general, Protestant Bibles include the same books as canonical as to Jewish ones. Roman Catholicism adds the apocryphal
books as equally important, and the deuterocanonical books as scriptural but less significantly so.
Yahwist
Yahwists are the people of God. A Yahwist believes that God alone creates, God alone reveals Godself, God alone imposes the
divine will upon humankind, and God alone saves and judges human beings. Yahwists are strict monotheists, thus believing in
Yahweh alone and no other gods.
The title Yahwist is also the name given to the earliest known author or source of the Bible. The Yahwist, known by the symbol J,
is believed to have written substantial portions of the books Genesis through Numbers. This source is dated around 950 B.C.E. A
strong sense of anthropomorphism, a positive view of the agricultural society, government, and kingship, and a clear and beautiful
writing style are characteristic of J.
Semitism
The Bible contains semitisms, figures of speech in Greek texts which translate awkwardly into English because of their Semitic
origin. "Semitic origin" includes a family of languages including Hebrew and Arabic. The presence or absence of "semitisms"
indicates to a scholar whether the text was originally written in Greek or Hebrew.
Typology
Typology is, by definition, simply a system of groupings which can be referred to as types. The members of each type contain
attributes which relate them to each other but are exclusive of the members of other types.
A typological approach to the interpretation of the Bible presupposes that people, institutions, and events in the Old Testament are
types of the people, institutions, and events in the New Testament. This implies that there is a direct relation to between the Old
and New Testament, with the role of theology being to discern the connection between the two.
The word typology comes from the Greek word typos, which means an impression or a pattern. Many New Testament passages
seem to be described in Old Testament terms.
Vulgate
(editio vulgata) - Latin version of the Bible, chiefly prepared by St. Jerome at the end of the 4th century, traditionally and most
widely used by the Western Church. So named because it was adopted in Western Europe as the "vulgar," or common, edition of
the Bible. It is regarded by the Roman Catholic Church as a safe, reliable source for its teaching and is revered because of its long
use in the Western Church.
CHRONOLOGY
The literary activity of St. Jerome, although very prolific, may be summed up under a few principal heads: works on the Bible;
theological controversies; historical works; various letters; translations. But perhaps the chronology of his more important writings
will enable us to follow more easily the development of his studies.
A first period extends to his sojourn in Rome (382), a period of preparation. From this period we have the translation of the
homilies of Origen on Jeremias, Ezechiel, and Isaias (379-81), and about the same time the translation of the Chronicle of
Eusebius; then the "Vita S. Pauli, prima eremitae" (374-379).
A second period extends from his sojourn in Rome to the beginning of the translation of the Old Testament from the Hebrew
(382-390). During this period the exegetical vocation of St. Jerome asserted itself under the influence of Pope Damasus, and took
definite shape when the opposition of the ecclesiastics of Rome compelled the caustic Dalmatian to renounce ecclesiastical
advancement and retire to Bethlehem. In 384 we have the correction of the Latin version of the Four Gospels; in 385, the Epistles
of St. Paul; in 384, a first revision of the Latin Psalms according to the accepted text of the Septuagint (Roman Psalter); in 384,
the revision of the Latin version of the Book of Job, after the accepted version of the Septuagint; between 386 and 391 a second
revision of the Latin Psalter, this time according to the text of the "Hexapla" of Origen (Gallican Psalter, embodied in the Vulgate).
It is doubtful whether he revised the entire version of the Old Testament according to the Greek of the Septuagint. In 382-383
"Altercatio Luciferiani et Orthodoxi" and "De perpetua Virginitate B. Mariae; adversus Helvidium". In 387-388, commentaries on
the Epistles to Philemon, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to Titus; and in 389-390, on Ecclesiastes.
Between 390 and 405, St. Jerome gave all his attention to the translation of the Old Testament according to the Hebrew, but this
work alternated with many others. Between 390-394 he translated the Books of Samuel and of Kings, Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes,
the Canticle of Canticles, Esdras, and Paralipomena. In 390 he translated the treatise "De Spiritu Sancto" of Didymus of
Alexandria; in 389-90, he drew up his "Quaestiones hebraicae in Genesim" and "De interpretatione nominum hebraicorum." In
391-92 he wrote the "Vita S. Hilarionis", the "Vita Malchi, monachi captivi", and commentaries on Nahum, Micheas, Sophonias,
Aggeus, Habacuc. In 392-93, "De viris illustribus", and "Adversus Jovinianum"; in 395, commentaries on Jonas and Abdias; in 398,
revision of the remainder of the Latin version of the New Testament, and about that time commentaries on chapters xiii-xxiii of
Isaias; in 398, an unfinished work "Contra Joannem Hierosolymitanum"; in 401, "Apologeticum adversus Rufinum"; between
403-406, "Contra Vigilantium"; finally from 398 to 405, completion of the version of the Old Testament according to the Hebrew.
In the last period of his life, from 405 to 420, St. Jerome took up the series of his commentaries interrupted for seven years. In
406, he commented on Osee, Joel, Amos, Zacharias, Malachias; in 408, on Daniel; from 408 to 410, on the remainder of Isaias;
from 410 to 415, on Ezechiel; from 415-420, on Jeremias. From 401 to 410 date what is left of his sermons; treatises on St. Mark,
homilies on the Psalms, on various subjects, and on the Gospels; in 415, "Dialogi contra Pelagianos".
CHARACTERISTICS OF ST. JEROME'S WORK
St. Jerome owes his place in the history of exegetical studies chiefly to his revisions and translations of the Bible. Until about
391-2, he considered the Septuagint translation as inspired. But the progress of his Hebraistic studies and his intercourse with the
rabbis made him give up that idea, and he recognized as inspired the original text only. It was about this period that he undertook
the translation of the Old Testament from the Hebrew. But he went too far in his reaction against the ideas of his time, and is open
to reproach for not having sufficiently appreciated the Septuagint. This latter version was made from a much older, and at times
much purer, Hebrew text than the one in use at the end of the fourth century. Hence the necessity of taking the Septuagint into
consideration in any attempt to restore the text of the Old Testament. With this exception we must admit the excellence of the
translation made by St. Jerome. His commentaries represent a vast amount of work but of very unequal value. Very often he
worked exceedingly rapidly; besides, he considered a commentary a work of compilation, and his chief care was to accumulate
the interpretations of his predecessors, rather than to pass judgment on them. The "Quaestiones hebraicae in Genesim" is one of
his best works. It is a philological inquiry concerning the original text. It is to be regretted that he was unable to continue, as had
been his intention, a style of work entirely new at the time. Although he often asserted his desire to avoid excessive allegory, his
efforts in that respect were far from successful, and in later years he was ashamed of some of his earlier allegorical explanations.
He himself says that he had recourse to the allegorical meaning only when unable to discover the literal meaning. His treatise, "De
Interpretatione nominum hebraicorum", is but a collection of mystical and symbolical meanings. Excepting the "Commenta rius in
ep. ad Galatas", which is one of his best, his explanations of the New Testament have no great value. Among his commentaries on
the Old Testament must be mentioned those on Amos, Isaias, and Jeremias. There are some that are frankly bad, for instance
those on Zacharias, Osee, and Joel. To sum up, the Biblical knowledge of St. Jerome makes him rank first among ancient
exegetes. In the first place, he was very careful as to the sources of his information. He required of the exegete a very extensive
knowledge of sacred and profane history, and also of the linguistics and geography of Palestine. He never either categorically
acknowledged or rejected the deuterocanonical books as part of the Canon of Scripture, and he repeatedly made use of them. On
the inspiration, the existence of a spiritual meaning, and the freedom of the Bible from error, he holds the traditional doctrine.
Possibly he has insisted more than others on the share which belongs to the sacred writer in his collaboration in the inspired work.
His criticism is not without originality. The controversy with the Jews and with the Pagans had long since called the attention of
the Christians to certain difficulties in the Bible. St. Jerome answers in various ways. Not to mention his answers to this or that
difficulty, he appeals above all to the principle, that the original text of the Scriptures is the only one inspired and free from error.
Therefore one must determine if the text, in which the difficulties arise, has not been altered by the copyist. Moreover, when the
writers of the New Testament quoted the Old Testament, they did so not according to the letter but according to the spirit. There
are many subtleties and even contradictions in the explanations Jerome offers, but we must bear in mind his evident sincerity. He
does not try to cloak over his ignorance; he admits that there are many difficulties in the Bible; at times he seems quite
embarrassed. Finally, he proclaims a principle, which, if recognized as legitimate, might serve to adjust the insufficiencies of his
criticism. He asserts that in the Bible there is no material error due to the ignorance or the heedlessness of the sacred writer, but
he adds: "It is usual for the sacred historian to conform himself to the generally accepted opinion of the masses in his time" (P.L.,
XXVI, 98; XXIV, 855). Among the historical works of St. Jerome must be noted the translation and the continuation of the
"Chronicon Eusebii Caesariensis", as the continuation written by him, which extends from 325 to 378, served as a model for the
annals of the chroniclers of the Middle Ages; hence the defects in such works: dryness, superabundance of data of every
description, lack of proportion and of historical sense. The "Vita S. Pauli Eremitae" is not a very reliable document. The "Vita
Malchi, monachi" is a eulogy of chastity woven through a number of legendary episodes. As to the "Vita S. Hilarionis", it has
suffered from contact with the preceding ones. It has been asserted that the journeys of St. Hilarion are a plagiarism of some old
tales of travel. But these objections are altogether misplaced, as it is really a reliable work. The treatise "De Viris illustribus" is a
very excellent literary history. It was written as an apologetic work to prove that the Church had produced learned men. For the
first three centuries Jerome depends to a great extent on Eusebius, whose statements he borrows, often distorting them, owing to
the rapidity with which he worked. His accounts of the authors of the fourth century however are of great value. The oratorical
consist of about one hundred homilies or short treatises, and in these the Solitary of Bethlehem appears in a new light. He is a
monk addressing monks, not without making very obvious allusions to contemporary events. The orator is lengthy and apologizes
for it. He displays a wonderful knowledge of the versions and contents of the Bible. His allegory is excessive at times, and his
teaching on grace is Semipelagian. A censorious spirit against authority, sympathy for the poor which reaches the point of hostility
against the rich, lack of good taste, inferiority of style, and misquotation, such are the most glaring defects of these sermons.
Evidently they are notes taken down by his hearers, and it is a question whether they were reviewed by the preacher. The
correspondence of St. Jerome is one of the best known parts of his literary output. It comprises about one hundred and twenty
letters from him, and several from his correspondents. Many of these letters were written with a view to publication, and some of
them the author even edited himself; hence they show evidence of great care and skill in their composition, and in them St. Jerome
reveals himself a master of style. These letters, which had already met with great success with his contemporaries, have been,
with the "Confessions" of St. Augustine, one of the works most appreciated by the humanists of the Renaissance. Aside from their
literary interest they have great historical value. Relating to a period covering half a century they touch upon most varied subjects;
hence their division into letters dealing with theology, polemics, criticism, conduct, and biography. In spite of their turgid diction
they are full of the man's personality. It is in this correspondence that the temperament of St. Jerome is most clearly seen: his
waywardness, his love of extremes, his exceeding sensitiveness; how he was in turn exquisitely dainty and bitterly satirical,
unsparingly outspoken concerning others and equally frank about himself. The theological writings of St. Jerome are mainly
controversial works, one might almost say composed for the occasion. He missed being a theologian, by not applying himself in a
consecutive and personal manner to doctrinal questions. In his controversies he was simply the interpreter of the accepted
ecclesiastical doctrine. Compared with St. Augustine his inferiority in breadth and originality of view is most evident. His
"Dialogue" against the Luciferians deals with a schismatic sect whose founder was Lucifer, Bishop of Cagliari in Sardinia. The
Luciferians refused to approve of the measure of clemency by which the Church, since the Council of Alexandria, in 362, had
allowed bishops, who had adhered to Arianism, to continue to discharge their duties on condition of professing the Nicene Creed.
This rigorist sect had adherents almost everywhere, and even in Rome it was very troublesome. Against it Jerome wrote his
"Dialogue", scathing in sarcasm, but not always accurate in doctrine, particularly as to the Sacrament of Confirmation. The book
"Adversus Helvidium" belongs to about the same period. Helvidius held the two following tenets:
Mary bore children to Joseph after the virginal birth of Jesus Christ;
from a religious viewpoint, the married state is not inferior to celibacy.
Earnest entreaty decided Jerome to answer. In doing so he discusses the various texts of the Gospel which, it was claimed,
contained the objections to the perpetual virginity of Mary. If he did not find positive answers on all points, his work, nevertheless,
holds a very creditable place in the history of Catholic exegesis upon these questions. The relative dignity of virginity and marriage,
discussed in the book against Helvidius, was taken up again in the book "Adversus Jovinianum" written about ten years later.
Jerome recognizes the legitimacy of marriage, but he uses concerning it certain disparaging expressions which were criticized by
contemporaries and for which he has given no satisfactory explanation. Jovinian was more dangerous than Helvidius. Although he
did not exactly teach salvation by faith alone, and the uselessness of good works, he made far too easy the road to salvation and
slighted a life of asceticism. Every one of these points St. Jerome took up. The "Apologetici adversus Rufinum" dealt with the
Origenistic controversies. St. Jerome was involved in one of the most violent episodes of that struggle, which agitated the Church
from Origen's lifetime until the Fifth Ecumenical Council (553). The question at issue was to determine if certain doctrines
professed by Origen and others taught by certain pagan followers of Origen could be accepted. In the present case the doctrinal
difficulties were embittered by personalities between St. Jerome and his former friend, Rufinus. To understand St. Jerome's
position we must remember that the works of Origen were by far the most complete exegetical collection then in existence, and
the one most accessible to students. Hence a very natural tendency to make use of them, and it is evident that St. Jerome did so,
as well as many others. But we must carefully distinguish between writers who made use of Origen and those who adhered to his
doctrines. This distinction is particularly necessary with St. Jerome, whose method of work was very rapid, and consisted in
transcribing the interpretations of former exegetes without passing criticism on them. Nevertheless, it is certain that St. Jerome
greatly praised and made use of Origen, that he even transcribed some erroneous passages without due reservation. But it is also
evident that he never adhered thinkingly and systematically to the Origenistic doctrines. Under these circumstances it came about
that when Rufinus, who was a genuine Origenist, called on him to justify his use of Origen, the explanations he gave were not free
from embarrassment. At this distance of time it would require a very subtle and detailed study of the question to decide the real
basis of the quarrel. However that may be, Jerome may be accused of imprudence of language and blamed for a too hasty method
of work. With a temperament such as his, and confident of his undoubted orthodoxy in the matter of Origenism, he must naturally
have been tempted to justify anything. This brought about a most bitter controversy with his wily adversary, Rufinus. But on the
whole Jerome's position is by far the stronger of the two, even in the eyes of his contemporaries. It is generally conceded that in
this controversy Rufinus was to blame. It was he who brought about the conflict in which he proved himself to be narrow-minded,
perplexed, ambitious, even timorous. St. Jerome, whose attitude is not always above reproach, is far superior to him. Vigilantius,
the Gascon priest against whom Jerome wrote a treatise, quarrelled with ecclesiastical usages rather than matters of doctrine.
What he principally rejected was the monastic life and the veneration of saints and of relics. In short, Helvidius, Jovinian, and
Vigilantius were the mouthpieces of a reaction against asceticism which had developed so largely in the fourth century. Perhaps
the influence of that same reaction is to be seen in the doctrine of the monk Pelagius, who gave his name to the principal heresy
on grace: Pelagianism. On this subject Jerome wrote his "Dialogi contra Pelagianos". Accurate as to the doctrine of original sin,
the author is much less so when he determines the part of God and of man in the act of justification. In the main his ideas are
Semipelagian: man merits first grace: a formula which endangers the absolute freedom of the gift of grace. The book "De situ et
nominibus locorum hebraicorum" is a translation of the "Onomasticon" of Eusebius, to which the translator has joined additions and
corrections. The translations of the "Homilies" of Origen vary in character according to the time in which they were written. As
time went on, Jerome became more expert in the art of translating, and he outgrew the tendency to palliate, as he came across
them, certain errors of Origen. We must make special mention of the translation of the homilies "In Canticum Canticorum", the
Greek original of which has been lost.
All I can say is this hardly the word of God. It is rather St. Jeromes
beliefs made Roman law in establishing a universal church of beliefs which two members of the Nicean council refuted and withdrew their approval.
God's word??? LOL LOL LOL RIFLOL
|
