Where did we get The Bible? - A IN-DEPTH STUDY

[BreadOfLife]

Once again, just because the books may have been attached to Greek translation of the parts of the OT does not mean they were scripture. Were these books ever:
-Laid up in the Temple?
-Make the hands unclean?
-Referred to as scripture by the NT writers with the introduction "It is written", or "Thus says the LORD"?

The answer to all three is no they were not.

The Rabbi's at the academy of Jabneh did not ever discuss the those books and even if they did according to the very information you cited (which I agree with) they did not have the authority to decide anything.

Lastly, the greatest biblical scholar of the early church Jerome denied the apocrypha was scripture. The fact is more an ancient source knew about the Hebrew language and culture the more likely they were to reject the apocrypha.

Your error is in reading Jerome’s EARLY writings about the Deuterocanonicals and not his later writings. He explained that it was not he – but the Jewish scholars helping him that objected to them. Jerome even used them in debates and referring to them as “sacred Scripture”.

Jerome Wrote
"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]).

Referring to the Books of Sirach in a debate – Jerom e uses the phrase “Sacred Scripture”:
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

The Book of Wisdom is one of Seven Scriptural proofs to establish the Church’s doctrinal view of the meaning of the image of God.
"Your argument is ingenious, but you do not see that it goes against HOLY SCRIPTURE, which declares that even ignorance is not without sin.
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."

 

[Athanasius377]

Jerome Wrote
"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])

Ok, so lets put this back into context. And for the record its actually Book II section 33 not book 11 because there are only three books in Jerome's apology.


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 having 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 freely, 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.


Jerome. (1892). Jerome’s Apology for Himself against the Books of Rufinus. In P. Schaff & H. Wace (Eds.), & W. H. Fremantle (Trans.), Theodoret, Jerome, Gennadius, Rufinus: Historial Writings, etc. (Vol. 3, pp. 516–517). Christian Literature Company.

So upon further inspection it turns out Jerome isn't saying what you think he is saying. He's actually taking issue with Theodotion's version of Daniel which was heretical and not the version found in the LXX. He still holds the Hebrew scriptures superior because in the next section (34) Jerome writes the following:


The Hebrew Scriptures are used by apostolic men; they are used, as is evident, by the apostles and evangelists. Our Lord and Saviour himself whenever he refers to the Scriptures, takes his quotations from the Hebrew; as in the instance of the words “He that believeth on me, as the Scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water,” and in the words used on the cross itself, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani,” which is by interpretation “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” not, as it is given by the Septuagint, “My God, my God, look upon me, why hast thou forsaken me?” and many similar cases. I do not say this in order to aim a blow at the seventy translators; but I assert that the Apostles of Christ have an authority superior to theirs. Wherever the Seventy agree with the Hebrew, the apostles took their quotations from that translation; but, where they disagree, they set down in Greek what they had found in the Hebrew.


Jerome. (1892). Jerome’s Apology for Himself against the Books of Rufinus. In P. Schaff & H. Wace (Eds.), & W. H. Fremantle (Trans.), Theodoret, Jerome, Gennadius, Rufinus: Historial Writings, etc. (Vol. 3, p. 517). Christian Literature Company.

Referring to the Books of Sirach in a debate – Jerom e uses the phrase “Sacred Scripture”:
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

He does call it scripture but you added "Sacred". And yes, he does given that he does not believe that Sirach belongs in the canon and the strength at which he argues I think this is more wishful thinking on your part.

"Your argument is ingenious, but you do not see that it goes against HOLY SCRIPTURE, which declares that even ignorance is not without sin.
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."

Again, familarity with these books does not mean they belong in the canon. JND Kelley agains explains:

The West, as a whole, was inclined to form a much more favourable estimate of the Apocrypha. Churchmen with Eastern contacts, as was to be expected, might be disposed to push them into the background. Thus Hilary, though in fact citing all of them as inspired, preferred to identify the Old Testament proper with the twenty-two books (as he reckoned them) extant in the Hebrew; while Rufinus described5 Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Tobit, Judith and 1 and 2 Maccabees as ‘not canonical, but ecclesiastical’, i.e. to be read by Christians but not adduced as authoritative for doctrine. 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 conceded7 that the Church read some of these books for edification, but not to support doctrine.

Kelly, J. N. D. (1977). Early Christian Doctrines (Fifth, Revised, p. 55). Bloomsbury.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Ok, so lets put this back into context. And for the record its actually Book II section 33 not book 11 because there are only three books in Jerome's apology.


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 having 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 freely, 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.


Jerome. (1892). Jerome’s Apology for Himself against the Books of Rufinus. In P. Schaff & H. Wace (Eds.), & W. H. Fremantle (Trans.), Theodoret, Jerome, Gennadius, Rufinus: Historial Writings, etc. (Vol. 3, pp. 516–517). Christian Literature Company.

So upon further inspection it turns out Jerome isn't saying what you think he is saying. He's actually taking issue with Theodotion's version of Daniel which was heretical and not the version found in the LXX. He still holds the Hebrew scriptures superior because in the next section (34) Jerome writes the following:


The Hebrew Scriptures are used by apostolic men; they are used, as is evident, by the apostles and evangelists. Our Lord and Saviour himself whenever he refers to the Scriptures, takes his quotations from the Hebrew; as in the instance of the words “He that believeth on me, as the Scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water,” and in the words used on the cross itself, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani,” which is by interpretation “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” not, as it is given by the Septuagint, “My God, my God, look upon me, why hast thou forsaken me?” and many similar cases. I do not say this in order to aim a blow at the seventy translators; but I assert that the Apostles of Christ have an authority superior to theirs. Wherever the Seventy agree with the Hebrew, the apostles took their quotations from that translation; but, where they disagree, they set down in Greek what they had found in the Hebrew.

Jerome. (1892). Jerome’s Apology for Himself against the Books of Rufinus. In P. Schaff & H. Wace (Eds.), & W. H. Fremantle (Trans.), Theodoret, Jerome, Gennadius, Rufinus: Historial Writings, etc. (Vol. 3, p. 517). Christian Literature Company.

He does call it scripture but you added "Sacred". And yes, he does given that he does not believe that Sirach belongs in the canon and the strength at which he argues I think this is more wishful thinking on your part.

Depending on the translation - some fay "Sacred" Scripture and others say "Holy" Scripture.

Again, familarity with these books does not mean they belong in the canon. JND Kelley agains explains:

The West, as a whole, was inclined to form a much more favourable estimate of the Apocrypha. Churchmen with Eastern contacts, as was to be expected, might be disposed to push them into the background. Thus Hilary, though in fact citing all of them as inspired, preferred to identify the Old Testament proper with the twenty-two books (as he reckoned them) extant in the Hebrew; while Rufinus described5 Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Tobit, Judith and 1 and 2 Maccabees as ‘not canonical, but ecclesiastical’, i.e. to be read by Christians but not adduced as authoritative for doctrine. 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 conceded7 that the Church read some of these books for edification, but not to support doctrine.

Kelly, J. N. D. (1977). Early Christian Doctrines (Fifth, Revised, p. 55). Bloomsbury.

You are living in complete denial.

Jerome’s words here are not up for debate. He explicitly refers to Sirach as “Holy Scripture” - yet YOU still insist that he didn’t mean it. He utilizes the Books o Wisdom to prove doctrine – and YOU ignore it.

Jerome did initially reject the Deuterocanonicals as uninspired, largely due to the counsel of the Jews, as he himself indicates. He explicitly states that it is the authority of the Church that settles the canon:
“What sin have I committed if I followed the judgment of the churches?”
(Against Rufinus (11:33, A.D. 402)

 

[MatthewG]

Depends on how you define the spectrum.

 

[Jack]

If the big bang theory is correct ….there was an explosion in a print shop which resulted in the complete bound old and new testaments .....and that is how we got the Bible

I certainly believe in the big BANG! God said "let there be" and BANG!!!!!

 

[Stumpmaster]

I certainly believe in the big BANG! God said "let there be" and BANG!!!!!

The bang that nobody heard.

 

[Athanasius377]

Referring to the Books of Sirach in a debate – Jerom e uses the phrase “Sacred Scripture”:
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

Besides the fact that the word sacred does not appear in the text nor is they any textual evidence that I can find showing a Mss with a textual variant using said word the idea that the letter is debate is laughable on its face. Its a letter consoling Eustochium on the loss of her mother Paula, a Christian ascetic! Do yourself a favor, go to New Advent, and read the Early church fathers yourself including this letter. Put their writings into context and let them tell you with their own words what they believe.

You are living in complete denial.

Jerome’s words here are not up for debate. He explicitly refers to Sirach as “Holy Scripture” - yet YOU still insist that he didn’t mean it. He utilizes the Books o Wisdom to prove doctrine – and YOU ignore it.

Once again he does not use the word "Holy" or "Sacred". He does call it scripture in a letter whose thrust is consoling a woman over the loss of her mother not debating history or theology.

Jerome did initially reject the Deuterocanonicals as uninspired, largely due to the counsel of the Jews, as he himself indicates. He explicitly states that it is the authority of the Church that settles the canon:
“What sin have I committed if I followed the judgment of the churches?”
(Against Rufinus (11:33, A.D. 402)

I have already answered this charge and gave you the context in post #252. Please make sure you cite the quotation correctly as it is rightly II.33 not 11.33.

The problem you are having is that Rome cannot demonstrate it's supposed historicity. You can search the ECF all you want and you will not find a single modern Roman Churchman among them. In order to accept Rome's claims she needs to demonstrate consistency of teaching across time and she simply cannot. She cannot demonstrate consistency across the last 100 years! That is why I reject Rome's claims as ahistorical and unfounded. That is why I am a Protestant of conviction not only from biblical evidence but also historical evidence.

 

[Athanasius377]

Funny you should bring up J.N.D. Kelly to dispute Irenaeus’s Against Heresies.

Kelley, in his Book, Oxford Dictionary of Popes uses this document to show the like of Papal succession going all the way back to Peter in Rome (see Rev. 17-18; Oxford Dictionary of the Popes, 6).

JND Kelley is writing a concise article on each of the Popes as Rome counts them. He does not discuss any textual issues in the Mss.

Also JND Kelley from the same work:

In the late 2nd or early 3rd century the tradition identified Peter as the first bishop of Rome. This was a natural development once the monarchial episcopate, i.e. government of the local church by a single bishop as distinct from a group of presbyter-bishops, finally emerged in Rome in the mid to late second century.

Oxford Dictionary of Popes. Kelley, J.N.D, Walsh, Michael, Third Edition OUP. P.50

So yeah, that doesn't work.

According to Protestant scholar D.A. Carson, Peter was:
“in Rome about 63 (the probable date of 1 Peter). Eusebius implies that Peter was in Rome during the reign of Claudius, who died in 54 (H.E. 2.14.6)” (An Introduction to the New Testament, 180).

This is a part of a footnote regarding a discussion on the dating of the Gospel of Mark. Here it is in its entirety:


Peter was probably in Corinth before A.D. 55 when Paul wrote 1 Corinthians (see 1:12; 3:22), and in Rome in about 63 (the probable date of 1 Peter). Eusebius implies that Peter was in Rome during the reign of Claudius, who died in 54 (H.E. 2.14.6). The absence of any reference to Peter in Romans suggests that Peter was not in Rome in 57.


Carson, D. A., & Moo, D. J. (2005). An Introduction to the New Testament (Second Edition). Zondervan.

I'm not sure what your point is by saying this because I am not disputing the fact that Peter was likely in Rome.

 

[Jack]

So many attacks on our Bible and yet it stands tall above all of Satan's attacks, including WatchTower attacks!

 

[Davy]

You might want to try reading E.W. Bullinger's scholarly work on the 12 star constellations BEFORE the pagans corrupted their history and symbolic meanings. Bullinger documented it in his book Witness Of The Stars.

What Bullinger disovered in his research of travels to ancient Egypt, etc., researching ancient writings, was the fact that what the 12 star constellations are named today was not their original names and meanings. Ancient pagan culture over the centuries changed their most ancient names.

The original names of the 12 star constellations actually matched events of The Bible. It basically means that GOD'S WORD was WRITTEN IN THE STAR CONSTELLATIONS before it was given to man to write down in letters!

So just as with most things during this present world, Satan and his host seek to take over what belongs to GOD, and instead claim for himself, corrupting it.

 

[Johann]

Despite his unremitting criticism of the traditional doctrines of Marian mediation and intercession, to the end Luther continued to proclaim that Mary should be honored. He made it a point to preach on her feast days.
"The veneration of Mary is inscribed in the very depths of the human heart."
Martin Luther, Weimar edition of Martin Luther's Works (Translation by William J. Cole) 10, III, p.313.

Don't go by what Luther wrote on Mary.

Although Calvin was not as profuse in his praise of Mary as Martin Luther he did not deny her perpetual virginity. The term he used most commonly in referring to Mary was "Holy Virgin".

No perpetual virginity.

"I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin." Zwingli used Exodus 4:22 to defend the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity.
Ulrich Zwingli, Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Volume 1, 424.

Zwingli is wrong.

 

[BreadOfLife]

JND Kelley is writing a concise article on each of the Popes as Rome counts them. He does not discuss any textual issues in the Mss.

Also JND Kelley from the same work:

In the late 2nd or early 3rd century the tradition identified Peter as the first bishop of Rome. This was a natural development once the monarchial episcopate, i.e. government of the local church by a single bishop as distinct from a group of presbyter-bishops, finally emerged in Rome in the mid to late second century.

Oxford Dictionary of Popes. Kelley, J.N.D, Walsh, Michael, Third Edition OUP. P.50

So yeah, that doesn't work.


This is a part of a footnote regarding a discussion on the dating of the Gospel of Mark. Here it is in its entirety:


Peter was probably in Corinth before A.D. 55 when Paul wrote 1 Corinthians (see 1:12; 3:22), and in Rome in about 63 (the probable date of 1 Peter). Eusebius implies that Peter was in Rome during the reign of Claudius, who died in 54 (H.E. 2.14.6). The absence of any reference to Peter in Romans suggests that Peter was not in Rome in 57.


Carson, D. A., & Moo, D. J. (2005). An Introduction to the New Testament (Second Edition). Zondervan.

I'm not sure what your point is by saying this because I am not disputing the fact that Peter was likely in Rome.

No - but you DID use the usual anti-Catholic argument that an Early Church document I referenced (Against Heresies) was “spurious”. This ALWAYS seems to be the case when and anti-Catholic like yourself is faced with indisputable historical evidence . . .

Any way - Carson doesn’t deny that Peter was in Rome. He simply posits that he wasn’t in Rome until 63AD.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Besides the fact that the word sacred does not appear in the text nor is they any textual evidence that I can find showing a Mss with a textual variant using said word the idea that the letter is debate is laughable on its face. Its a letter consoling Eustochium on the loss of her mother Paula, a Christian ascetic! Do yourself a favor, go to New Advent, and read the Early church fathers yourself including this letter. Put their writings into context and let them tell you with their own words what they believe.


Once again he does not use the word "Holy" or "Sacred". He does call it scripture in a letter whose thrust is consoling a woman over the loss of her mother not debating history or theology.

WRONG.
Jerome explicitly uses the phrase "Holy Scripture" as I already showed you:
"Your argument is ingenious, but you do not see that it goes against HOLY SCRIPTURE, which declares that even ignorance is not without sin.
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."

I have already answered this charge and gave you the context in post #252. Please make sure you cite the quotation correctly as it is rightly II.33 not 11.33.

The problem you are having is that Rome cannot demonstrate it's supposed historicity. You can search the ECF all you want and you will not find a single modern Roman Churchman among them. In order to accept Rome's claims she needs to demonstrate consistency of teaching across time and she simply cannot. She cannot demonstrate consistency across the last 100 years! That is why I reject Rome's claims as ahistorical and unfounded. That is why I am a Protestant of conviction not only from biblical evidence but also historical evidence.

As to your absolute manure with regard to the Church’s “inconsistency” in teaching – I OPENLY CHYALLENGE you to give me a SINGLE doctrinal change in Catholic teaching over the last 2000 years – let alone the last 100 years . . ..

Secondly - your problem is ignorance of what “Tradition” is.
According to Paul:
2 Thess. 2:15
"Stand firm and hold fast to the Traditions you were taught, whether by an ORAL STATEMENT or by a LETTER from us."

2 Thess. 3:6
"Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us."

Sacred or Apostolic Tradition, which Paul describes as EITHER Scripture OR Oral teaching is just as binding on the believer as Scripture.

NOWBERE does Kelly discount the idea dog Peter’s Roman Bishopric.

 

[Athanasius377]

No - but you DID use the usual anti-Catholic argument that an Early Church document I referenced (Against Heresies) was “spurious”. This ALWAYS seems to be the case when and anti-Catholic like yourself is faced with indisputable historical evidence . . .

The problem with Against Heresies is that there are things he says that even you would disagree with are out of the bounds or orthodoxy. For example, like Jesus Christ being 50 years old when he was crucified as part of his recapitulation theory:


But, besides this, those very Jews who then disputed with the Lord Jesus Christ have most clearly indicated the same thing. For when the Lord said to them, “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day; and he saw it, and was glad,” they answered Him, “Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham?” Now, such language is fittingly applied to one who has already passed the age of forty, without having as yet reached his fiftieth year, yet is not far from this latter period. But to one who is only thirty years old it would unquestionably be said, “Thou art not yet forty years old.” For those who wished to convict Him of falsehood would certainly not extend the number of His years far beyond the age which they saw He had attained; but they mentioned a period near His real age, whether they had truly ascertained this out of the entry in the public register, or simply made a conjecture from what they observed that He was above forty years old, and that He certainly was not one of only thirty years of age. For it is altogether unreasonable to suppose that they were mistaken by twenty years, when they wished to prove Him younger than the times of Abraham.


Irenaeus of Lyons. (1885). Irenæus against Heresies. In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson, & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus (Vol. 1, p. 392). Christian Literature Company.

And this brings us to my other point about the ECF. There is no consensus of the ECF. They say a lot of things. A lot of really great things but some are wrong. And here Irenaeus is wrong. Now I don't recommend ignoring everything he has to say as he is an early witness but do understand that he has ehh, blindspots. So as you see, its not so indisputable as you claim.

 

[Athanasius377]

WRONG.
Jerome explicitly uses the phrase "Holy Scripture" as I already showed you:
"Your argument is ingenious, but you do not see that it goes against HOLY SCRIPTURE, which declares that even ignorance is not without sin.
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."

Once again we are dealing with out of context proof texts that really doesn't say what you someone told you it said. The quotation is in two parts but spliced together to make Jerome say something he doesn't say.


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, lest, 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 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, who3 would not have any one perish, nor delights in the death of sinners, but would rather that they should be converted and live.


Jerome. (1893). Against the Pelagians. In P. Schaff & H. Wace (Eds.), & W. H. Fremantle, G. Lewis, & W. G. Martley (Trans.), St. Jerome: Letters and Select Works (Vol. 6, p. 465). Christian Literature Company.

Here Jerome is referencing Lev 5:17 and Heb 9:7:


17 “If anyone sins, doing any of the things that by the Lord’s commandments ought not to be done, though he did not know it, then realizes his guilt, he shall bear his iniquity. cf Lev 4:2, Lev 4:27


The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Le 5:17). (2016). Crossway Bibles.


These preparations having thus been made, the priests go regularly into the first section, performing their ritual duties, 7 but into the second only the high priest goes, and he but once a year, and not without taking blood, which he offers for himself and for the unintentional sins of the people.


The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Heb 9:6–7). (2016). Crossway Bibles.

The next part which is part of the next two paragraphs which follows:


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, lest, 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 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 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: “Look not into things above thee, and search not things too mighty for thee.” And elsewhere, “Make not thyself overwise, and argue not more than is fitting.





Jerome. (1893). Against the Pelagians. In P. Schaff & H. Wace (Eds.), & W. H. Fremantle, G. Lewis, & W. G. Martley (Trans.), St. Jerome: Letters and Select Works (Vol. 6, p. 465). Christian Literature Company.

So Jerome doesn't call Wisdom Holy Scripture does he?

 

[Athanasius377]

As to your absolute manure with regard to the Church’s “inconsistency” in teaching – I OPENLY CHYALLENGE you to give me a SINGLE doctrinal change in Catholic teaching over the last 2000 years – let alone the last 100 years . . ..

Easy. Capital Punishment for one.


2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor


Catholic Church. (2000). Catechism of the Catholic Church (2nd Ed., p. 546). United States Catholic Conference.

2267. Recourse to the death penalty on the part of legitimate authority, following a fair trial, was long considered an appropriate response to the gravity of certain crimes and an acceptable, albeit extreme, means of safeguarding the common good.

Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state. Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption.

Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person”,[1] and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide.

Original found here

I bought my Catechism of the Catholic Church in 2003 and its already obsolete. Bummer I guess.

 

[BreadOfLife]

The problem with Against Heresies is that there are things he says that even you would disagree with are out of the bounds or orthodoxy. For example, like Jesus Christ being 50 years old when he was crucified as part of his recapitulation theory:


But, besides this, those very Jews who then disputed with the Lord Jesus Christ have most clearly indicated the same thing. For when the Lord said to them, “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day; and he saw it, and was glad,” they answered Him, “Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham?” Now, such language is fittingly applied to one who has already passed the age of forty, without having as yet reached his fiftieth year, yet is not far from this latter period. But to one who is only thirty years old it would unquestionably be said, “Thou art not yet forty years old.” For those who wished to convict Him of falsehood would certainly not extend the number of His years far beyond the age which they saw He had attained; but they mentioned a period near His real age, whether they had truly ascertained this out of the entry in the public register, or simply made a conjecture from what they observed that He was above forty years old, and that He certainly was not one of only thirty years of age. For it is altogether unreasonable to suppose that they were mistaken by twenty years, when they wished to prove Him younger than the times of Abraham.


Irenaeus of Lyons. (1885). Irenæus against Heresies. In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson, & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus (Vol. 1, p. 392). Christian Literature Company.

And this brings us to my other point about the ECF. There is no consensus of the ECF. They say a lot of things. A lot of really great things but some are wrong. And here Irenaeus is wrong. Now I don't recommend ignoring everything he has to say as he is an early witness but do understand that he has ehh, blindspots. So as you see, its not so indisputable as you claim.

WRONG.
YOU need to read this more SLOWLY.

NOWHERE does Irenaeus claim that Jesus was FIFTY at AN point in His life.
In fact, he stated that although Jesus was only THIRTY, the Pharisees assumed he was forty or older but not yet fifty. This is a direct quote from John’s Gospel:

John 8:57
“Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?”

The only thing “wrong” with Irenaeus’s document is your flawed understanding of it . . .

 

[Athanasius377]

WRONG.
YOU need to read this more SLOWLY.

NOWHERE does Irenaeus claim that Jesus was FIFTY at AN point in His life.
In fact, he stated that although Jesus was only THIRTY, the Pharisees assumed he was forty or older but not yet fifty. This is a direct quote from John’s Gospel:

John 8:57
“Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?”

The only thing “wrong” with Irenaeus’s document is your flawed understanding of it . . .

Lets look at a preceeding paragraphs:

4. Being thirty years old when He came to be baptized, and then possessing the full age of a Master, He came to Jerusalem, so that He might be properly acknowledged6 by all as a Master. For He did not seem one thing while He was another, as those affirm who describe Him as being man only in appearance; but what He was, that He also appeared to be. Being a Master, therefore, He also possessed the age of a Master, not despising or evading any condition of humanity, nor setting aside in Himself that law which He had appointed for the human race, but sanctifying every age, by that period corresponding to it which belonged to Himself. For He came to save all through means of Himself—all, I say, who through Him are born again to God8—infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men. He therefore passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, thus sanctifying infants; a child for children, thus sanctifying those who are of this age, being at the same time made to them an example of piety, righteousness, and submission; a youth for youths, becoming an example to youths, and thus sanctifying them for the Lord. So likewise He was an old man for old men, that He might be a perfect Master for all, not merely as respects the setting forth of the truth, but also as regards age, sanctifying at the same time the aged also, and becoming an example to them likewise. Then, at last, He came on to death itself, that He might be “the first-born from the dead, that in all things He might have the pre-eminence,” the Prince of life,11 existing before all, and going before all.

This part of Irenaeus's recapitulation theory. He goes on in the next paragraph:

On completing His thirtieth year He suffered, being in fact still a young man, and who had by no means attained to advanced age. Now, that the first p 392 stage of early life embraces thirty years, and that this extends onwards to the fortieth year, every one will admit; but from the fortieth and fiftieth year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher, even as the Gospel and all the elders testify; those who were conversant in Asia with John, the disciple of the Lord, [affirming] that John conveyed to them that information. And he remained among them up to the times of Trajan.3 Some of them, moreover, saw not only John, but the other apostles also, and heard the very same account from them, and bear testimony as to the [validity of] the statement. Whom then should we rather believe?

Irenaeus of Lyons. (1885). Irenæus against Heresies. In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson, & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus (Vol. 1, pp. 391–392). Christian Literature Company.

Huh, still reads like Irenaeus thought that Jesus was an old man of 50+ by testimony of the elders.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Once again we are dealing with out of context proof texts that really doesn't say what you someone told you it said. The quotation is in two parts but spliced together to make Jerome say something he doesn't say.

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, lest, 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 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, who3 would not have any one perish, nor delights in the death of sinners, but would rather that they should be converted and live.

Jerome. (1893). Against the Pelagians. In P. Schaff & H. Wace (Eds.), & W. H. Fremantle, G. Lewis, & W. G. Martley (Trans.), St. Jerome: Letters and Select Works (Vol. 6, p. 465). Christian Literature Company.

Here Jerome is referencing Lev 5:17 and Heb 9:7:

17 “If anyone sins, doing any of the things that by the Lord’s commandments ought not to be done, though he did not know it, then realizes his guilt, he shall bear his iniquity. cf Lev 4:2, Lev 4:27


The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Le 5:17). (2016). Crossway Bibles.

These preparations having thus been made, the priests go regularly into the first section, performing their ritual duties, 7 but into the second only the high priest goes, and he but once a year, and not without taking blood, which he offers for himself and for the unintentional sins of the people.

The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Heb 9:6–7). (2016). Crossway Bibles.

The next part which is part of the next two paragraphs which follows:

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, lest, 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 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 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: “Look not into things above thee, and search not things too mighty for thee.” And elsewhere, “Make not thyself overwise, and argue not more than is fitting.

Jerome. (1893). Against the Pelagians. In P. Schaff & H. Wace (Eds.), & W. H. Fremantle, G. Lewis, & W. G. Martley (Trans.), St. Jerome: Letters and Select Works (Vol. 6, p. 465). Christian Literature Company.

So Jerome doesn't call Wisdom Holy Scripture does he?

First of all I post that he was including the Boolk oof Wisdom in his argumeny along with Leviticus and Hebrews.

And, sorry - but the onys is still pn YOU to explain why Jerome used the Book of Wisdom to convey a pnt of doctrine. There would be no reaso for this if it was an "extrabiblical" source.

 

[Athanasius377]

First of all I post that he was including the Boolk oof Wisdom in his argumeny along with Leviticus and Hebrews.

And, sorry - but the onys is still pn YOU to explain why Jerome used the Book of Wisdom to convey a pnt of doctrine. There would be no reaso for this if it was an "extrabiblical" source.

Fair enough. I would say the Jerome also quotes pagan authors that no Christian would cite as authoritative such as Cicero. A familiarity of said texts does not equal they are the authoritative God Breatheed Scripture.
The apocryphal writings are important and we read them as part of our liturgy. Yet those books are not considered part of the canon of Holy Scripture.