Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1883-01-08


his material and the weakness of his cause
ia evidenced by this fact.
But while We have NO more arguments
We have vast number Of allegations, some
of which are 80 startling that they deserve
a passing notice. In speaking Of what
some Catholics choose to call the deutero-
canonical books, the bishop says:
"No father is known positively to have
rejected them. jerome certainly did not
although he allowed distinction between
them and other books in arguing from
them against the Jews and heretics."
What does the bishop mean by saying
that no one positively rejected the books?
There were several fathers who rejected
their canonicity and denied their inspira-
ton. Melito, bishop of Sardis,and Cyril,of
Jerusalem,who had been brought into con-
tact with the feeling which prevailed in
Jerusalem, most emphatically rejected
them, while Jerome was the first Latin
father who called them apocryphal.
Again the bishop says very brusquely
in response to my affirmation that Jerome
would not translate the Apocrypa, because
he held it in so light regard:
'Of course he did not translate the Apo
crypha as ne did the other books of the
Old Testament from the Hebre1, for
Hebrew copies of them were not extant"
The bishops scholarship is here at fault.
Jerome in his prologue to Samuel and
Malachi says most distinctly that he found
the first books of the Maccabees in Hebrew
'Machabaeorum primum hbrum Hebral-
cum reperi," and yet for some reason he
did not translate it. Can the bishop offer
a better reason than that which has been
given? The first portion of Baruck was
probably written in Hebrew also. But If
written in the Chaldaic language it would
not matter so far as Jerome was concerned
for he read both languages with equal
fuency. The Hebrew, Chaldaio andISyriac
are so many dialects as it were of the same
Semitic family. AS I have studied all
three and the Arabic as we'll, which is the
oldest branch of this family, can well
understand how easily, after one
is mastered, the others may be
learned 1t is true that the
"Wisdom of Solomon" was written neither
in Hebrew or Chaldee, but in Greek. 1t
was a comparatively late Alexsndrian pro-
duction. But Jerome need not have omit
ted the book for this reason, for Jerome
read Greek also. Why did he not translate
the Sapientia? The reason is obvious. He
did not -thiLk it either canonical or
dsutero canonical, but uacanOnical and
spurious.
The Sapientia was not the Wisdom of
Solomon as its name implies, bat the wisdom
of some philosophio Greek speaking Jew.
In his preface to the books of Solomon
Jerome says: "Another writing with a
Ell Sc al ho Tod nf
mon. (It) is never found with Hebrew
writings because its very style smacks OF
Greek eloqusnoe."
Cardinal Cajetan, the adversary OF Luth-
or at Augsburg, says:
''Ths whole Latin church owes very much
to st. jerome on account Of his separation
of the canonical from the uncanonical
books" In the face of such clear testi-
nony as this it requires an assurance al
most sublime to say that Jerome did not
rsjsol the Apoorypha. If there is one fact
in the whole discussion of the canon clear
or than another, il would seem to be this,
that Jerome, in the Latin church, was the
very head and front of the opposition to
the Als1andrian addition to the Bible. 1t
was he who hrss called the Hsllenistie
books Apoeryphal. It was he who refused
to translate all save Judith and Tobit, and
ID was he who opposed their Introduction
into the revision Of the Latin vulgate.
ReqstGseot iH Pace.
Again the bishop says in reply TO my ar
gumsli thas the Psshito or early Syriae
version did net contain the ApocrJpha.
'sThs Bsshito was the Bible Of the little
territory OF Asia Minor whore the Syrian
language was spoken. The Bible of the
Hast vas the Greek ssptusgint." The
bishop May know that The term Bible "the
Book" which originated in the fifth cen
tsry, 10 usually applied to the one book
which sontains the Old and New Testament.
As the Ssptuagipt did not contain the New
Testament it could not properly be called
the Bible of the East. may have express
ssd myself too broadly in calling the early
Psshito which contained the Old Testament
the Eastern Bible, for out of Syria no
doubt the Greek manuscripts OF the New
Testament were generally read;
still the argument derived from the wit
ness Of the early Syriac version remains
Arm, for the bishop acknowledges that the
Peshito, which represents the Palestinian
tradition in regard to the ancient scrip
lures, omitted the Apocrypha. His Ian
suage is: ''Ths very first Syriac transla-
tion does not contain the Apocrypha be-
cause it was translation from the Hebrew
version, which did not contain them"
But finally We come to what the bishop,
by oft repetition, evidently considers his
crucial question: ave can fairly ask Mr..
Thomas he says, what is his rule for the
admission Of books into the canon, and on
this rule, whatever it may be, We will show
him that one book, whether of the Old or
New Testament, has as much right to a
place in the canon as another"
Ny rale, if the bishop desires to know,
Is very simple one.
In regard to the Old Testament l defer
to the common consent of Israel, for unto
them were committed the oracles OF
God"
In regard to the New Testament canon
/ defer to the common consent of the
Christian church, for it sis the witness
and keeper of Christian truth"
As the Jewish church was some time In
reaching common consent in regard to
its Hagiographa or sacred writings as
distinguished from the law and the
prophets to which the Saviour alludes
under the general designations Of the
Psalms, so the Christian church was
some time in deciding in regard to its
antilegomena or questioned writings.
It was not until late in the fourth CEN
fury, not until the evidence was all in, that