Re: The Canon Debate
- Thank you Kevin for that explanation.
Those are details I missed before.
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Kevin P. Edgecomb" <kevin@...> wrote:
> His initial intent seems to have been to prepare a Latin translation
> Old Testament that could be effectively used in apologetics,
> argument with Jews. He repeatedly states in the prefaces and in
> other letters that he did not intend to replace the Septuagint as the
> Testament of the Church. His work was intended to be supplementary to
> not substitutionary.
> So in that plan of his, those books that he (sometimes mistakenly)
> existed only in Greek and were thus considered not to have been
> Hebrew would not have been of any use. That is the initial context of
> discussion of canon--a canon with a particular intent, one that can be
> defended against the arguments of the Jews, who found such things as
> story of Susanna and Bel and the Dragon ridiculous, although they were
> are part of the Christian Old Testament.
> In essence, he didn't downgrade the books. He had no authority to do
> nor were his earlier recommendations for a shorter canon ever
> the Latin church. St Jerome himself came to change his mind on the
> preferring the statements of Christian bishops [preface to Tobias] and
> Council of Nicea [preface to Judith] to other opinions.
> Later, exclusive focus on St Jerome's opinions as expressed in the
> to Kings (the books of Samuel and Kings) tended to distort the
> particularly in the Reformation, ignoring St Jerome's very clear
> of opinion in regards to the inclusion of various books later in his
> Most still quote from that preface as though it is a programmatic
> that represents a consistent position of St Jerome, but this is not
> Kevin P. Edgecomb
> Berkeley, California