Where is Jerome coming from?
There are a large number of incompatible backgrounds here, Baptist, Catholic, Evangelical, etc, and many of these authors do not agree with each other. You are selling Jerome's Commentary on Daniel for $10, where is he coming from, what are his beliefs? He was born at a time of great persecution, 347 A.D. and many were killed for their beliefs. Am I right in assuming he was Catholic?
Comments
-
Catholics say he Catholic; Orthodox say he's Orthodox; the labels don't apply pre-schism. Jerome was primarily a translator - one who favored Hebrew over Greek as the basis of his Latin translations. He is typically Patristic and one should not try to pigeon-hole him into categories that didn't exist in his time - denominationally or theologically.
A sample of his style:
2:10. They asked only that we should remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do.
The holy poor, the care of whom was specially committed by the apostles to Paul and Barnabas, are Jewish believers. Either they lay at the feet of the apostles their most valuable possessions201 to be distributed to the needy, or they were reviled and persecuted by their kin, family, and parents for deserting the Law and believing in a crucified man.202 The letters of the holy apostle Paul testify to how much effort he poured into ministering to them, as he wrote to the Corinthians, Thessalonians, and all of the churches of the Gentiles to ask them to prepare this offering to be taken to Jerusalem through himself or other ministers acceptable to them.203 For this reason he now says confidently, “The very thing I was eager to do.”
The “poor,” understood another way, may refer also to those about whom the Gospel speaks: “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.”204 Such people undoubtedly deserve to be remembered by the apostles. Solomon writes about them as well: “The ransom of a man’s life is his riches, but the poor man does not hear rebuke.”205 For the man who is poor in grace or faith is unable to hear the warning about the punishment that is to come because he does not have spiritual riches or a knowledge of Scripture, which is compared to gold, silver, and a precious gem.206 Therefore, because it is the sick and not the healthy that need a doctor, the apostles agreed by the clasping of right hands not to look down on the poor or be contemptuous of sinners but always to remember them, just as Paul remembered the man whom in his first letter to the Corinthian church he had chastised momentarily in the hope that he would put his body through rigorous repentance and thereby save his spirit.207 He wrote to this man in his second letter [to the same church] to summon him back to the fold so that he would not be swallowed up by more sorrow, and he asked all the members of the congregation to forgive their brother and reaffirm their love for him, just as Paul himself forgave each of them before Christ, thus fulfilling the promise he had made at Jerusalem always to remember the poor.208
2:11–13. When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was in the wrong. Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself [from the Gentiles] because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that even Barnabas was led astray.
The fact that Peter would eat with Gentiles before certain men came from Jerusalem to Antioch shows that he had not forgotten the injunction not to call anyone common or unclean.209 But because of the Judaizers he withdrew from the Gentile gathering. As a result, the rest of the Jews followed suit—and even Barnabas, who together with Paul had preached the Gospel among the Gentiles, was compelled to do so. Uncircumcised Gentile believers in Antioch were being forced to comply with the burdensome requirements of the Law and did not apprehend the dispensation by which Peter hoped for all Jews to be saved although they thought that they were the ones who properly understood the Gospel. When the Apostle Paul saw the grace of Christ in peril, the fighter in him employed a new battle tactic to counter Peter’s plan of saving the Jews with a plan of his own and to oppose him to his face, without making known his plan but acting in public as if he were contradicting Peter so that the Gentiles might be protected by his actions.210
Now, if anyone thinks that Paul really opposed Peter and fearlessly insulted his predecessor in defense of evangelical truth, he will not be moved by the fact that Paul acted as a Jew among fellow Jews in order to win them for Christ.211 What is more, Paul would have been guilty of the same kind of dissimulation on other occasions, such as when he shaved his head in Cenchrea,212 when he made an offering in Jerusalem after doing this,213 when he circumcised Timothy214 and went barefoot—all of which are clearly aspects of Jewish religious ritual. The preacher to the Gentiles did some things that were contrary to evangelical freedom in order to avoid scandalizing the Jews, and he thought it necessary to say, “Do not cause Jews or the church of God to stumble, just as I please everybody in every way, seeking not my own good but the good of many, so that they may be saved.”215 On what authority, or with what affront, then, did Paul dare to rebuke Peter, the apostle of the circumcised, for the very thing that he, as the apostle of the uncircumcised, had done? As I already noted, he opposed Peter and the rest so that, as far as public appearances were concerned, their hypocrisy in observing the Law, which was harmful to Gentile believers, might be corrected by his own hypocrisy in reproaching them. This was done so that both Jews and Gentiles might be saved, for the advocates of circumcision would follow Peter, and their opponents would preach the liberty espoused by Paul. When he says that Peter was in the wrong, he tempers his words to give us the impression that Peter’s conduct did not so much offend him as it did the brothers with whom he had been eating but from whom he later withdrew.
For another example of how temporary deception can be expedient, let us consider Jehu, the king of Israel. He would not have been able to kill the priests of Baal unless he had feigned a desire to worship this false god, and he said, “Assemble all the priests of Baal for me, for Ahab served Baal in a few respects, I shall serve him in many.”216 Another example is when David altered his appearance, pretending to be somebody else in Abimelech’s presence, and Abimelech dismissed him.217 That even very righteous men resort to temporary dissimulation for the sake of their own or others’ salvation is not surprising when we recall that our Lord himself, who was free of iniquity and whose flesh was not sinful, pretended to take on sinful flesh so that by condemning sin in his flesh he might make us the righteousness of God. Paul certainly had read in the Gospel where the Lord teaches, “If your brother sins against you, go and rebuke him privately; if he listens to you, you have won your brother over.”218 So how, after Christ ordered that this be done with regard to the least of the brothers, could Paul venture to rebuke publicly the greatest of the apostles so resolutely and firmly, unless Peter had consented [beforehand] to this? Paul accordingly would not have insulted the man whose praises he had sung in many instances, including the following. “I went to Jerusalem to see Peter and I stayed with him for fifteen days and I did not see any other of the apostles [except James the brother of the Lord].”219 “For God, who was at work in Peter’s ministry to the Jews.”220 “Peter, James, and John, who seemed to be pillars.”221
As a young man, I would deliver rhetorical declamations in Rome and would engage in real contests in which I argued mock court cases.222 Many times I rushed to the courtroom and watched extraordinary orators argue so bitterly that at times they would momentarily forget the case at hand and become sidetracked with their own personal quarrels, trading sarcastic barbs with each other. If they do this to keep from arousing suspicion from the guilty parties on trial that they are in collusion and they end up deceiving the audience, what do we think such great pillars of the church and vessels of wisdom as Peter and Paul should have done to reconcile the bickering Jews and Gentiles, except to feign a quarrel to bring about peace among the believers and harmonize the faith of the church by means of a holy dispute between themselves?
Some suppose that the Cephas whom Paul claims to have confronted is not Peter but one of the seventy disciples who went by the same name.223 They claim that there is no way Peter could have been capable of withdrawing from fellowship with the Gentiles. After all, he had baptized Cornelius.224 And when he had gone up to Jerusalem, the circumcised believers criticized him and asked, “Why did you enter the houses of uncircumcised men and eat with them?”225 After recounting his vision he answered their question directly: “ ‘If God gave the same grace to them as he did to us who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who am I to stand in God’s way?’ Upon hearing his words they fell silent and praised God, saying, ‘God has given to the Gentiles the repentance that leads to life.’ ”226 Most compelling of all is that the historian Luke was silent about this quarrel [in the Acts of the Apostles], and he also does not say that Peter was ever in Antioch with Paul. That blasphemer Porphyry scores a victory if it is believed that either Peter erred or Paul rashly rebuked the chief of the apostles.
Those who believe that Cephas and Peter are two different people can be refuted, first of all, by the fact that we do not know of any other person named Cephas besides the one who shows up in the Gospels and other Pauline letters, in some of which he is called Cephas, in others, Peter. It is not that “Peter” and “Cephas” signify different things, but what we call petra [“stone”] in Latin and Greek, the Hebrews and Syrians227 call cephas because of the similarity of their languages. Secondly, the entire argument of the epistle, namely, its subtext about Peter, James, and John, militates against this interpretation. It is not surprising that Luke failed to mention this detail, seeing that there are many other things that Paul claims to have suffered which [Luke, invoking his] license as an historian, omits. There is no contradiction involved if one of them deemed an event worthy of being recounted while the other consigned it to oblivion. Furthermore, we accept that Peter was the first bishop of the church at Antioch and later moved to Rome—information that Luke altogether disregarded. Finally, if in our attempt to refute Porphyry’s blasphemy we invent another Cephas just so that we can acquit Peter of error, then we must purge from divine Scripture an untold number of passages that Porphyry calumniated because he did not understand them. But if Christ will command it, I shall take aim at Porphyry in another work.228 But for now, let us continue the present discussion.Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
another example:
2. (13:1) The burden of, or “vision against,” Babylon, which Isaiah the son of Amoz saw. He saw how heavy a weight was to be placed upon Babylon, not with the eyes of the flesh but of the mind [cf. Eph 1:18].1 And since Babylon means “confusion,” which is expressed in Hebrew as Babel, because there the speech of those building the tower was “confused” [cf. Gen 11:4–9], spiritually it signifies this world, which “is placed in wickedness” [1 John 5:19] and “confuses” not only languages but the works and minds of everyone. The king of this Babylon is the true Nebuchadnezzar (Nabuchodonosor), who is proud over against God. He says in his heart, “I will ascend into heaven, I will set my throne above the stars of heaven [cf. Isa 14:13], I will sit in the mountain of the covenant, in the sides of the north, I will ascend above the height of the clouds, I will be like the Most High” [Isa 14:13–14]. This is the one who showed the Lord all the kingdoms of the world and said to him, “All these things have been handed over to me, and I will give them to you, if you fall down and worship me” [cf. Matt 4:8–9; Luke 4:6]. After all, in what follows the threat is not “against Babylon,” but “against” the world: “The Lord of hosts has given charge to the most warlike nation, that it should come from a land afar off, from the end of heaven, to destroy the world” [Isa 13:4–5];2 and again: “Behold, a day of incurable fury and wrath is coming, to make the world desolate and to destroy the sinners out of it” [Isa 13:9]; and then: “I will command evils for the whole world, and their sins for the ungodly” [Isa 13:11]. From these things it is proven that everything that is said “against Babylon” pertains to the “confusion” and destruction of this world.
3. (13:2a) Upon the gloomy mountain, or “of the plain” [cf. Isa 13:2], lift up a standard.
To the apostles, to apostolic men, and to teachers of the churches, a charge is given that those who are about to speak “against Babylon” [cf. Isa 13:1] should lift up the standard of the Lord’s cross, not in a lowly place and in sunken valleys, but upon the gloomy mountain, or that is, “of the plain.” The former [gloomy mountain] signifies the hidden mysteries of the church, which for Moses to see and hear the voice of God, he entered darkness and gloom [cf. Exod 20:21]—for God “made darkness his hiding place” [Ps 17:11], and “clouds and gloom [are] round about him” [Ps 97:2]. The latter [“mountain of the plain”] shows that we ought to ascend to the high places of ecclesiastical doctrines in such a way that we are humble, like the Apostle Paul, and we should say, “I am not worthy to be called an apostle, since I persecuted the church of God” [1 Cor 15:9]. And he is one who lifted up a standard “on the mountain of the plain” [Isa 13:2], when he said with his innate humility, “But I have decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and him crucified” [1 Cor 2:2]. Now up above, this one lifted up this standard that arose from the root of Jesse [cf. Isa 11:1] for the nations [cf. Isa 11:10], to gather those of Israel who were lost [cf. Isa 11:12; Matt 10:6; 15:24].
4. (13:2b) Exalt the voice, lift up the hand. The Septuagint translated this, “Comfort with the hand.”
He exalts the voice who speaks of lofty things and thinks little of the things of the present, which are brief and transitory; who hears from the same Isaiah, “Go up upon a high mountain, you who bring good tidings to Zion; lift up your voice with strength, you who bring good tidings to Jerusalem” [Isa 40:9]. He lifts up his hand, who is able to say with David, “The lifting up of my hands [is] an evening sacrifice” [Ps 141:2], and who “in every place lifts up holy hands” [cf. 1 Tim 2:8]. Thus he not only lifts up the hand, but he also “comforts with the hand,” so that he would not say to the poor, “Come tomorrow and receive” [Prov 3:28],3 but he “comforts” him in his poverty and need by his present mercy.
5. (13:2b) And let the rulers go into the gates. The Septuagint says, “Open, O princes.”
The rulers of the church go into the gates of the mysteries (mysteriorum)4 of God and recognize the symbols (sacramenta) of the Scriptures. They hold the key of knowledge [cf. Luke 11:52], that they may “open” them for the people entrusted to them. This is why teachers are commanded to “open” and disciples to go in.
6. (13:3a) I have commanded my sanctified ones. The Septuagint renders this, “I will command and I will bring them.”
For he is sanctifying his own ministers, that both he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified may all be from one [cf. Heb 2:11]. And he who says to believers in another passage, “Be holy, for I am holy” [Lev 11:44], himself “commands and brings” his own “princes,” to do what they have been “commanded.”
7. (13:3b) And I have called my strong ones in my wrath, those who rejoice in my glory. Septuagint: “Giants are coming to fulfill my fury, rejoicing at the same time and insulting.”
In the Hebrew this sticks closely to what is said above, that he has called his strong ones and those who rejoice in their own glory, who had “commanded his sanctified ones.”5 On the other hand, in the Septuagint the “giants” who are “coming to fulfill the fury” of the Lord, “rejoicing” in the injury of others and glad, should be understood as the left-hand and hostile powers of which we read in the Psalms, “He sent against them the fury of his wrath, fury, anger and tribulation, a sending by means of evil angels” [Ps 78:49]. One of these is the destroyer in Egypt, who does not dare to enter the lintels smeared with lamb’s blood [cf. Exod 12:23]. There is also that spirit who came forth and stood before the Lord and says, “I will deceive Ahab,” and the Lord said to him, “You will deceive and prevail, go and do so” [cf. 1 Kgs 22:21–22]. This is why Micah says in the same Book of Kings, “I saw the God of Israel sitting on his throne, and all the army of heaven was standing around him on the right hand and on the left” [1 Kgs 22:19]. The powers of the right consist of those angels who are sent for good things, but those on the left are the ones to which we are handed over for punishment. This is also why the Apostle says, “Whom I handed over to Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme” [1 Tim 1:20].
Now the term “giants,” for which the Hebrew has recorded gebborim, that is, strong ones, the Septuagint and Theodotion translated in imitation of pagan myths, just as they use the terms Sirens [cf. Isa 13:22; 34:13; Job 30:29], Titans [cf. 2 Sam 5:18, 22], Arcturus [cf. Job 9:9], Hyades, and Orion [cf. Job 38:31], which are called by different names in Hebrew.6 Now if the “giants” are rebels against God, and all heresies that are contrary to the truth rebel against God, [then] all heretics are “giants,” who “rejoice” in their error and boast especially at that time when they have “insulted” the church.Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
phil stilliard said:
Am I right in assuming he was Catholic?
MJ. Smith said:Catholics say he Catholic; Orthodox say he's Orthodox; the labels don't apply pre-schism.
What can safely be said is that Jerome was not a Protestant, as there weren't any yet. Jerome was in communion with the bishop of Rome and all of the bishops in communion with him (including Augustine).
Jerome was a fantastic scholar whose work is of tremendous importance to the history of the Bible and of Christianity as a whole.
“The trouble is that everyone talks about reforming others and no one thinks about reforming himself.” St. Peter of Alcántara
0 -
SineNomine said:
What can safely be said is that Jerome was not a Protestant, as there weren't any yet. Jerome was in communion with the bishop of Rome and all of the bishops in communion with him (including Augustine).
What can also be safely said is that Jerome was also not a Catholic since certain distinguishing features which mark the Catholic Church had not yet arisen.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
George Somsel said:
What can also be safely said is that Jerome was also not a Catholic since certain distinguishing features which mark the Catholic Church had not yet arisen.
???
I believe one can say that there were already 3 geographic flavors of which Jerome represented the Western Church as he was commissioned to translate into Latin. And general terminology makes the following equations although admittedly a bit anachronistically. Western=Catholic, Byzantine=Eastern Orthodox, Eastern=Oriental Orthodox. Jerome IIRC died prior to the Nestorian Schism and it therefore appropriately claimed by all three flavors. However, Jerome is venerated in the entire ACELO community (Anglican, Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran and Oriental Orthodox). I believe that all the above statements stay out of theology. Yours, George, does not which is very atypical of you.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
As he is my patron Saint I can safely say having studied his life he would almost certain call himself Catholic, former secretary to a Pope and while he favoured a Hebrew canon, he was staunchly Catholic in many ways.
-dan
0 -
MJ. Smith said:George Somsel said:
What can also be safely said is that Jerome was also not a Catholic since certain distinguishing features which mark the Catholic Church had not yet arisen.
???
I believe one can say that there were already 3 geographic flavors of which Jerome represented the Western Church as he was commissioned to translate into Latin. And general terminology makes the following equations although admittedly a bit anachronistically. Western=Catholic, Byzantine=Eastern Orthodox, Eastern=Oriental Orthodox. Jerome IIRC died prior to the Nestorian Schism and it therefore appropriately claimed by all three flavors. However, Jerome is venerated in the entire ACELO community (Anglican, Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran and Oriental Orthodox). I believe that all the above statements stay out of theology. Yours, George, does not which is very atypical of you.
I am referring to the doctrine of Petrine supremacy, dormition of Mary, papal infallibility ex cathedra, etc. The veneration of Mary was just beginning.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
George Somsel said:
I am referring to the doctrine of Petrine supremacy, dormition of Mary, papal infallibility ex cathedra, etc. The veneration of Mary was just beginning.
I am sorry to see that. Everything in your list is shared by the Eastern and Oriental Churches as evidenced by joint documents of the last 50 years. And specifically, assumption (not dormition) and ex cathedra are very recent (last 150 years) formulations of beliefs also shared by the Eastern and Oriental churches although they object, quite rightly, to some of the language used in those formulations. So they can scarcely be distinguishing characteristics. BTW: dormition vs. assumption is an East/West division with dormition being Orthodox/Eastern Rite and assumption being Western Rite. (The difference is the answer to the question "did Mary die?".
From Wikipedia:
"In the Eastern Orthodox Churches, some understand the primacy of the Bishop of Rome to be merely one of greater honour, regarding him as primus inter pares ("first among equals"), without effective power over other churches. Other Orthodox Christian theologians, however, view primacy as authoritative power: the expression, manifestation and realization in one bishop of the power of all the bishops and of the unity of the Church."
=====
"The Dormition of the Mother of God (Greek: Κοίμησις Θεοτόκου, Koímēsis Theotokou often anglicized as Kimisis, Slavonic: Успение Пресвятыя Богородицы, Uspenie Presvetia Bogoroditsi) is a Great Feast of the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Catholic Churches which commemorates the "falling asleep" or death of Mary, the mother of Jesus (literally translated as God-bearer), and her bodily resurrection before being taken up into heaven. It is celebrated on August 15 (August 28, N.S. for those following the Julian Calendar) as the Feast of the Dormition of the Mother of God. The Armenian Apostolic Church celebrates the Dormition not on a fixed date, but on the Sunday nearest August 15."
=====
"The Assumption of the Virgin Mary into Heaven, often shortened to the Assumption, and also known as the Falling Asleep of the Blessed Virgin Mary, according to the beliefs of the Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, and parts of Anglicanism, was the bodily taking up of the Virgin Mary into Heaven at the end of her earthly life."
=====
"A Marian devotion in Christianity is directed to the person of the Blessed Virgin Mary. The term "devotions" is commonly understood to refer to those external practices of piety by which the faith of an individual finds expression.
Such prayers or acts may be accompanied by specific requests for Mary's intercession with God. There are many Marian devotions, ranging from multi-day prayers such as the recitation of novena prayers, the celebration of Canonical coronations granted by the Pope, the veneration of icons in Eastern Christianity, and subtle pious acts which do not involve prayers, such as the wearing of scapulars or maintaining a Mary garden.
Devotion to the Virgin Mary does not, however, amount to worship - which is reserved for God; e.g., both Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox view Mary as subordinate to Christ, but uniquely so, in that she is seen as above all other creatures. In 787 the Second Council of Nicaea affirmed a three-level hierarchy of latria, hyperdulia and dulia that applies to God, the Virgin Mary and then to the other saints.
Marian devotions are important to the Roman Catholic, Orthodox and Anglican traditions, but most Protestant views on Mary do not accept them, because such devotions are not recorded or promoted in the Bible. They believe this devotion may distract attention from Christ. There is significant diversity of form and structure in Marian devotions practiced by different groups of Christians."
=====
"The Lutheran views on the veneration of Mary were interpreted differently by different theologians over time. Key is his interpretation of the Magnificat of Mary, which to some is a relic of the Catholic past, but to others a clear indication, that he maintained a Marian piety. Luther states in his Magnificat, that one should pray to Mary, so God would give and do, through her will, what we ask. But, he adds, it is God’s work alone. Some interpret his Magnificat as a personal supplication to Mary, but not as a prayerful request for mediation. An important indicator of Luther’s views on the veneration of Mary are not only his writings but also approved practices of Lutherans during his lifetime. The singing of the Magnificat in Latin was maintained in many German Lutheran communities. The Church Order (Kirchenordnung) of Brandenburg, Bugenhagen Braunschweig and other cities and districts decreed by the royal heads of the Lutheran Church, maintained three Marian feast days, to be observed as public holidays. It is known that Martin Luther approved of this. He also approved of keeping Marian paintings and statues in the Churches.Luther did, however, say that "Mary prays for the church". He also advocated the use of the first half of the Hail Mary (that is, "Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.") as a sign of reverence for and devotion to the Virgin"
=====
Hmmm do you think there is a reason I refer often to the ACELO churches? (Anglican-Catholic-Eastern Orthodox-Lutheran-Oriental Orthodox)
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
George Somsel said:
The veneration of Mary was just beginning.
Jerome had a high veneration for Mary and her perpetual virginity. To the extent he argued after the birth of Jesus Mary's hymen was still intact. Would he have favoured even aspect that has come to be associated with the modern RCC, unlikely. Would he have broke away with the reformers? I cannot speculate on that, but from what I know it seems doubtful. A good example of his sticking to official church edict is Oreigin Jerome valued his works greatly, yet he fell under the official position that he was not orthodox. Jerome in many ways was churlish, petty and a most unsaintly saint. I love him and venerate his memory because despite his defects, his towering intellect and devotion are worth honouring. And while I cannot agree with the medieval pope who claimed the only way Jerome made it into heaven was the rock he beat himself with, I will say Jerome may have seemed to need more grace than many other saints.
-Dan
0 -
Dan Francis said:George Somsel said:
The veneration of Mary was just beginning.
Jerome had a high veneration for Mary and her perpetual virginity. To the extent he argued after the birth of Jesus Mary's hymen was still intact. Would he have favoured even aspect that has come to be associated with the modern RCC, unlikely. Would he have broke away with the reformers? I cannot speculate on that, but from what I know it seems doubtful. A good example of his sticking to official church edict is Oreigin Jerome valued his works greatly, yet he fell under the official position that he was not orthodox. Jerome in many ways was churlish, petty and a most unsaintly saint. I love him and venerate his memory because despite his defects, his towering intellect and devotion are worth honouring. And while I cannot agree with the medieval pope who claimed the only way Jerome made it into heaven was the rock he beat himself with, I will say Jerome may have seemed to need more grace than many other saints.
-Dan
Even so, that is a far cry from the situation today where every Catholic church has a statue of Mary and Marian Devotions. To ask that Mary intercede for them as though she had some authority (Queen of Heaven) is nearly blasphemous. I'm not saying that Catholics aren't christians, but I do think they get lost in the weeds. My position is that of the Greeks in Jn 12
NRSV: Jn 12.20-21 said:20 Now among those who went up to worship at the festival were some Greeks. 21 They came to Philip, who was from Bethsaida in Galilee, and said to him, “Sir, we wish to see Jesus."
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
The Lutheran views on the veneration of Mary were interpreted differently by different theologians over time.
I venerate Mary as Theotokos. Whether this included perpetual virginity or an honourable bodily assumption to heaven after death are things i do not discuss. I understand that many honour in these ways, I tend to personally fall in the category of people who consider her a mother who gave birth many times and is present in Heaven with Jesus in an honoured place much as any queen mother would be. I know well that Luther, another fiery saint with feet of clay stated "Cursed to the deepest pit of Hell be anyone who dares deny the perpetual virgintiy of our Lady" (forgive the rough paraphrasing I could grab my copy of what luther says from CPH and get it exact but since it is already a translation from the german I hope my memory will suffice ). So I know well that I fall out of even Luther's belief. Mary is a saint I venerate and have no issue asking her to pray for me, I am not sure her prayers hold greater weight with God but I am sure they hold no lesser weight.
-Dan
0 -
George Somsel said:
Even so, that is a far cry from the situation today where every Catholic church has a statue of Mary and Marian Devotions. To ask that Mary intercede for them as though she had some authority (Queen of Heaven) is nearly blasphemous. I'm not saying that Catholics aren't christians, but I do think they get lost in the weeds. My position is that of the Greeks in Jn 12
I will not argue that in some Catholic circles I feel they go to far and do seemingly worship Mary, the title queen of heaven is not one i typical ascribe to Mary but as I sated above I can see how it might be appropriate in the fact that she is Mother to the King of all Creation. She has as much authority to intercede as any saint, whose prayers rise as incense constantly to God. As I stated above I am not one to say her intercession is of more importance but is of importance.
-Dan
0 -
Dan Francis said:
Mary is a saint I venerate and have no issue asking her to pray for me, I am not sure her prayers hold greater weight with God but I am sure they hold no lesser weight.
I understand that. Even Anglicans believe that the saints are still part of the Church and that asking them to pray for you is like asking your neighbor to pray for you. But, don't forget Saint Luther and Saint Calvin (and all of the other saints).
I sing a song of the saints of God said:I sing a song of the saints of God,
Patient and brave and true,
Who toiled and fought and lived and died
For the Lord they loved and knew.
And one was a doctor, and one was a queen,
And one was a shepherdess on the green;
They were all of them saints of God, and I mean,
God helping, to be one too.Yes, even curmudgeons can be saints !
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
By the way, does anyone know why he is called Jerome in English, and not Hieronymus?
Gold package, and original language material and ancient text material, SIL and UBS books, discourse Hebrew OT and Greek NT. PC with Windows 11
0 -
Veli Voipio said:
By the way, does anyone know why he is called Jerome in English, and not Hieronymus?
Just a guess. "Hier" probably became "Je" and the rest is a shortening of "-onymus."
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
Veli Voipio said:
By the way, does anyone know why he is called Jerome in English, and not Hieronymus?
Same reason we have Jesus and Yeshua latinization. I have one friend of Russian decent who while born in Canada was name Vasily although goes by Basil, although in a true and full Anglicization, he has said it would be William.
-Dan
0 -
Dan Francis said:
I have one friend of Russian decent who while born in Canada was name Vasily although goes by Basil
That follows Grimm's law
π β φ
κ γ χ
τ δ θ
logosres:grkgramclg;ref=Page.p_1;off=13
Note in Spanish the use of "baca" for "vaca."
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
Often it is also in the form Hieronymus(Jerome) or similar.
I also came across "Hieronymus the Peripatetic" I assume he is somebody else who used to walk in a circle while thinking. This is fun, there are many things I don't know [:)]
Gold package, and original language material and ancient text material, SIL and UBS books, discourse Hebrew OT and Greek NT. PC with Windows 11
0 -
Veli Voipio said:
Often it is also in the form Hieronymus(Jerome) or similar.
I also came across "Hieronymus the Peripatetic" I assume he is somebody else who used to walk in a circle while thinking. This is fun, there are many things I don't know
You're only now learning that? I've known that ever since I passed from my SOPHOMORE year to my Junior year. [;)]
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
George Somsel said:
To ask that Mary intercede for them as though she had some authority (Queen of Heaven) is nearly blasphemous.
You are misinterpreting figurative language. To quote the CCC: "And so the Church venerates in Mary the purest realization of faith."
Catholic Church, Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd Ed. (Washington, DC: United States Catholic Conference, 2000), 40.I make the same plea as I would for any tradition: don't make statements about others' theology unless you are certain that you know what their position is. You can appropriately say "I have read books by and for Catholic in which they appear to attribute some special authority to Mary" or "I have known Catholics that appear to be more devoted to Mary than Jesus". If I were to say that many Protestants place Marian idols outside their sanctuary or church at winter solstice, most people on the forums would get the joke. "Everyone" knows creches aren't idols and that it is not the solstice that is commemorated. Your interpretation is just as incorrect. The difference is that fewer people on the forums know enough to recognize it as such.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
MJ. Smith said:George Somsel said:
To ask that Mary intercede for them as though she had some authority (Queen of Heaven) is nearly blasphemous.
You are misinterpreting figurative language. To quote the CCC: "And so the Church venerates in Mary the purest realization of faith."
Catholic Church, Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd Ed. (Washington, DC: United States Catholic Conference, 2000), 40.I make the same plea as I would for any tradition: don't make statements about others' theology unless you are certain that you know what their position is. You can appropriately say "I have read books by and for Catholic in which they appear to attribute some special authority to Mary" or "I have known Catholics that appear to be more devoted to Mary than Jesus". If I were to say that many Protestants place Marian idols outside their sanctuary or church at winter solstice, most people on the forums would get the joke. "Everyone" knows creches aren't idols and that it is not the solstice that is commemorated. Your interpretation is just as incorrect. The difference is that fewer people on the forums know enough to recognize it as such.
mea culpa !
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
When "the saints" are mentioned in the New testament, it usually refers only to the living. To judge who is to be a Saint means to search their hearts and thoughts, which can only be God.
0 -
All those united to God in faith are saints... even OT charters like David and Daniel... When we talk about saints we generally mean those who have been acknowledged as examples of faith worthy of veneration and sought as an example.
-Dan
0 -
Phil, the forum guidelines prohibit the discussion of theology which may be difficult to tell from the preceding discussion. But when we want to push against the boundary most of us are very careful to state objective facts about the theology of a group or carefully qualify it as "my belief". So in the future, especially outside discussions like this which were very carefully skirting a very thin line, you'll want to avoid statements of a theological position as "truth". ... Otherwise you might get me observing that your first sentence is interesting considering how few dead Christians there were to be mentioned. [;)]
Phil Gons (Faithlife) said:Please abide by the following guidelines as you interact on our forums.
- Please keep your discussions focused on Logos Bible Software: our software, products, websites, company, tools, etc.
- Please do not discuss or debate biblical, theological, or other controversial topics. Use one of the many web forums intended for these kinds of discussions.
- Please treat each other with the love, courtesy, respect, and kindness that you would if you were sitting in your living room together.
- Please do not use our forums to
- sell or give away anything or link to anything you’re selling or giving away—including Logos products
- promote or link to competitors
- point people to other places that sell Logos-compatible products
- advertise yourself, your business, your ministry, your website, etc. (a tasteful link in your forum signature is acceptable)
- post Logos Coupon Codes. If you are aware of a special promotion Logos is running online, you are welcome to link directly to the promotion.
- Please search before posting. It’s likely that someone has already asked your question.
- Please help others follow these guidelines. If the problems continue after you’ve given a gentle reminder of these expectations, please click “Report Abuse” under “More” or send an email to forums@logos.com.
Thank you for your cooperation. Enjoy discussing and learning about Logos Bible Software.
Note: Logos does support another forum for theological discussions.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
phil stilliard said:
There are a large number of incompatible backgrounds here, Baptist, Catholic, Evangelical, etc, and many of these authors do not agree with each other. You are selling Jerome's Commentary on Daniel for $10, where is he coming from, what are his beliefs? He was born at a time of great persecution, 347 A.D. and many were killed for their beliefs. Am I right in assuming he was Catholic?
With great trepidation I enter this - hoping to stay on topic...
Jerome was a great man of learning and letters of his age. In the sense that "Catholic" has the root meaning "according to the whole" he was a great servant of it, transporting the learning of east and west to each other in person, in translations, and his own writings. For better or worse, to some extent his debate with Augustine about Pauline interpretation is not entirely unlike the discussion today about the "New" perspective of Paul... Agree or disagree with him, you will learn from him and grow in the process.
As far as the conventional understandings of labels like "Baptist, Catholic, Evangelical", his work is from an era where these understandings of today really have little if any meaning. He was a man of the Church - the faithful secretary of the Bishop of Rome - and also a man of great learning who was by no means unwilling to learn from those who were in tension with the Church of Rome - eg. the Palestinian Jews from whom he learned Hebrew.
The Gospel is not ... a "new law," on the contrary, ... a "new life." - William Julius Mann
L8 Anglican, Lutheran and Orthodox Silver, Reformed Starter, Academic Essentials
L7 Lutheran Gold, Anglican Bronze
0 -
Do we still have Jerome's Latin translation of the Bible extant?
0 -
David Roberts said:
Do we still have Jerome's Latin translation of the Bible extant?
logosres:vulgataclem;art=title
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
It's just there's been some editing going over over the centuries,George Somsel said:logosres:vulgataclem;art=title
I was wondering what the earliest copy is, that most reflects what Jerome himself intended the text to be,
not how later editors adapted it to become.
While looking at your Wiki link I spotted this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Fuldensis
Which curiously has the Diatessaron in Latin, I have some good reading ahead of me.
https://books.google.pl/books?id=FKiuAg2u5-0C
https://archive.org/details/codexfuldensisn00rankgoog0 -
The Latin Manuscripts of the New Testament are of two main families. The oldest complete New Testament in Old Latin (the version that predates Jeremone's Vulgate) is known as Codex Ardmachanus and comes from ca 850. Codex Speculum contains all of the New Testament except 3 John, Philemon, and Hebrews (housed: Saint Cross monastery (Sessorianus) in Rome). However, the oldest partial is of the Gospels and comes from 350 (Codex Vercellensis, housed: Vercelli City Library). This chart lists out all the known Old Latin manuscripts and where they are housed. I found nothing with more than pieces of the Old Testament. Mostly Genesis with the oldest (Codex Bobiensis) being 550 (housed: National Library of Naples).
The oldest known copy of Jermone's Vulgate to have the complete New Testament dates to 541 (housed: Hochschul- und Landesbibliothek Fulda). The oldest partial NT is of the Gospels and comes from 450 (housed: Bibliothèque nationale de France). This chart shows the known Vulgate manuscripts and where they are housed. Codex Theodulphianus is the oldest with the Old Testament and it comes from the 8th or 9th century (the chart lists it as tenth but the page itself says 8th or 9th. It is also housed in the Bibliothèque nationale de France).
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Thanks for the very helpful reply.MJ. Smith said:The Latin Manuscripts of the New Testament are of two main families. The oldest complete New Testament in Old Latin (the version that predates Jeremone's Vulgate) is known as Codex Ardmachanus and comes from ca 850. Codex Speculum contains all of the New Testament except 3 John, Philemon, and Hebrews (housed: Saint Cross monastery (Sessorianus) in Rome). However, the oldest partial is of the Gospels and comes from 350 (Codex Vercellensis, housed: Vercelli City Library). This chart lists out all the known Old Latin manuscripts and where they are housed. I found nothing with more than pieces of the Old Testament. Mostly Genesis with the oldest (Codex Bobiensis) being 550 (housed: National Library of Naples).
The oldest known copy of Jermone's Vulgate to have the complete New Testament dates to 541 (housed: Hochschul- und Landesbibliothek Fulda). The oldest partial NT is of the Gospels and comes from 450 (housed: Bibliothèque nationale de France). This chart shows the known Vulgate manuscripts and where they are housed. Codex Theodulphianus is the oldest with the Old Testament and it comes from the 8th or 9th century (the chart lists it as tenth but the page itself says 8th or 9th. It is also housed in the Bibliothèque nationale de France).
May I ask has anyone transcribed any of the early witnesses to Jerome's Vulgate?
My eyes really struggle to read some of the old handwriting, as beautiful as the hand may be.
I'd love to compare early witnesses to Jerome's to the standard Clementine edition.
Don't worry, I'm not saying they're completely different, just wanting to see where changes were made.0 -
Sorry, I know of an Academic Institute for the Old Latin - prior to Jerome - but I don't know an equivalent for the Vulgate.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0
