Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: The Canon Debate

Expand Messages
  • summascriptura
    Thank you Kevin for that explanation. Those are details I missed before. ... of the ... specifically in ... various ... Old ... it, ... thought ... originally
    Message 1 of 5 , Aug 27 6:37 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      Thank you Kevin for that explanation.

      Those are details I missed before.


      --- In lxx@yahoogroups.com, "Kevin P. Edgecomb" <kevin@...> wrote:
      >
      > His initial intent seems to have been to prepare a Latin translation
      of the
      > Old Testament that could be effectively used in apologetics,
      specifically in
      > argument with Jews. He repeatedly states in the prefaces and in
      various
      > other letters that he did not intend to replace the Septuagint as the
      Old
      > Testament of the Church. His work was intended to be supplementary to
      it,
      > not substitutionary.
      >
      > So in that plan of his, those books that he (sometimes mistakenly)
      thought
      > existed only in Greek and were thus considered not to have been
      originally
      > Hebrew would not have been of any use. That is the initial context of
      his
      > 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
      the
      > story of Susanna and Bel and the Dragon ridiculous, although they were
      and
      > are part of the Christian Old Testament.
      >
      > In essence, he didn't downgrade the books. He had no authority to do
      that,
      > nor were his earlier recommendations for a shorter canon ever
      implemented in
      > the Latin church. St Jerome himself came to change his mind on the
      matter,
      > preferring the statements of Christian bishops [preface to Tobias] and
      the
      > Council of Nicea [preface to Judith] to other opinions.
      >
      > Later, exclusive focus on St Jerome's opinions as expressed in the
      preface
      > to Kings (the books of Samuel and Kings) tended to distort the
      evidence,
      > particularly in the Reformation, ignoring St Jerome's very clear
      alteration
      > of opinion in regards to the inclusion of various books later in his
      life.
      > Most still quote from that preface as though it is a programmatic
      statement
      > that represents a consistent position of St Jerome, but this is not
      the
      > case.
      >
      > Regards,
      > Kevin P. Edgecomb
      > Berkeley, California
      >
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.