In conference to mark 50th anniversary of Nostra Aetate, pontiff stresses faiths’ shared roots and foundations
ed note–a few quotes may be in order here–
‘Behold, I send you out as sheep midst the wolves, be ye therefore as wise as serpents but as meek as doves’
‘No man can serve 2 masters, as he will either love the one and hate the other or hate the one and love the other.’
‘If God were your Father, you would love me, for I have come here from God who has sent me. Why is my language not clear to you? You are unable to hear what I say, because you belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires, who was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! Whoever belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear what I say is that you do not belong to God.” And the Jews answered him, “Aren’t we right in saying that you are demon-possessed?”And Jesus responded “I am not possessed by a demon, but I honor my Father and you dishonor me. I am not seeking glory for myself; but there is one who seeks it, and he is the judge.’
‘No one pours new wine into old wineskins. Otherwise, the wine will burst the skins, and both the wine and the wineskins will be ruined. No, they pour new wine into new wineskins.’
“I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. The hired hand is not the shepherd and does not own the sheep. So when he sees the wolf coming, he abandons the sheep and runs away. Then the wolf attacks the flock and scatters it. just as the Father knows me and I know the Father–and I lay down my life for the sheep. All those who have come before me were thieves and robbers, but my sheep have not listened to them. The Jews who heard these words were again divided. Many of them said, “He is demon-possessed and raving mad. Why listen to him?” and again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him him to death, but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?” Again they tried to seize him, but he escaped their grasp.
These are but a FEW passages from the gospels showing the ‘commonality’ between Judaism and Christianity, 2 schools of thought so close in fact that the Jews welcomed Jesus and His teachings with being stoned to death, run off of a cliff, and finally, false witness, a sham trial, scourging and then nailed to a tree to hang for 3 hours until His death, crimes for which they willingly accepted all responsibility when they shouted ‘His blood be upon us and upon our children’.
But then, this was the inevitable outcome of Christianity’s fateful and fatal decision to incorporate the teachings of the Jews, which Jesus described as ‘the leaven of the Pharisees’, a new message of brotherhood, compassion, forgiveness, and, above all others-HUMILITY–that was 180 degrees opposite the tribalistic, racist, violent narcissism known as Judaism that began with Abraham, continued with Moses, David, etc.The real tragedy of it all is how many Christians, upon hearing Bergoglio’s false statements, will swallow it hook, line ad sinker, achieving the effect that the Jews want, which is increased Christian support for Israel and her murderous agenda in the Middle East and beyond.
Exactly Editor!! and I hope all Jew- book “hypnotized” zombies shouting= these are the worlds of “””truth “” listen and learn will stop proselytising posters on every anti-Jewish website and start believing in the REAL Truth that it is just an instrument t of Jewish brainwashing that you have been told to believe . Dont be Jewish goyim forever wake-up !! to Reality and war-war-war- for Jewish Domination of the World its happening NOW ! are you blind -scared to speak out dont be you are only righteous in your belief if you believe 100 % in FREEDOM and arecprepared to fight for it-see how the Jews fight they dont talk -they ACT ! and it works .
I think the commentary is overblown. Jesus also said, the Pharisees sit on the throne of Moses. Do as they say not as they do. Certainly, to the extent that the Jews of old followed Moses, they have roots in common with Christianity. The present argument avers that modern Jews have abandoned Moses, even though they would give him lip service. To that exent, opposition to Jews makes sense. Opposition to usurpers and charlatans is not anti-Semitism, since the opposition is based on behavior and not racial ancestry. The question remains what does honest opposition to Jews look like? Constant harangues and animosity? Does hostility lead to religious and moral conversion? I doubt it. Charity and friendship seem they way to go, they way the Pope prefers to lead.
ed note–the Bible says all sorts of contradictory things. Why would Jesus instruct His followers to do as the Pharisees say when He repeatedly refers to them as ‘blind guides’ who–if they are followed, will lead others into ‘the pit’ with them? Why would He warn that those who submit themselves to the direction of the Pharisees would become ‘sons of perdition’ and yet at the same time tell people to follow such men?
These contradictions are more than likely the result of bad translations since it is obvious that Jesus warned over and over again that people NOT follow the Pharisees.
To George Korcan…. you can find whatever nuance of pro Jew confusion in the political cut and paste job, known as the Bible you want….as Christ said,”Why do you haggle over Scripture like a Pharisee ?”
But the fact remains the Jews opposed Christ, than ,and now.
He was a break,and not a continuation, of the Jews…A “New Covenant”, not the old.
When Christ said,”You sit on the throne of Moses” it was not a compliment.
Christ opposed the Jew OT God,Yahweh,they represented.
“A liar from the beginning”. He called them.
Pudding Head Francis is a Vatican 2 Jew owned Pope.
This is all he does…cater to them. He ignores there crimes, and actions.
All of his antedotes to the worlds ills are Judaic, from Marxism, to Globalism.
The answer to the economic woes ,we endure,is the old Catholic attack on ‘usury’.as
Interest….Father Couglin taught this,and all pre Vatican 2 Popez.
But he cannot revive this ,because the Jews own the banks…all the money owed to them. Their instrument of rule.
This is key….if he dared breach the subject,and I doubt he or his circle of saps even understand it…the “Nazis”Would be at the Vatican again.
This Prope “prefers “,nothing. He is scripted. All of his pronouncments superficial.
He does not “Lead”, but follow the International Masonic/Jew world power structure.
See Opus Dei Alert.Com.
Reading Ardenz’s string of accusations is like reading a Jew dominated left wing rag. The Apostles taught what Christ taught, that we are to answer evil with good. This answer seems to be much more than a Biblical nuance. Pope Pius XII silenced Fr. Caughlin. I suppose he also was a tool of the Jews. If Pope Francis is such a tool, why did he have the Vatican recognize a future Palestinian state? While I concede that Jews have an inordinate influence in banking and other fields, for that reason, why provoke such an enemy into greater hostility and aggression? This is a matter of prudence. As you may recall, Stalin asked rhetorically, how many divisions does the Pope have? Well he has none. And Catholics around the world must rely on the Vatican’s diplomatic skills. Furthermore, from what I have seen of his writings (I don’t trust the Democrat media to report them accurately) his commentary has continuity with the teachings of prior Popes and has basis in the Bible. Christians rely on the Bible as both a moral and historical authority. This is important in modern times, in a Protestant country such as America, because Martin Luther (no Jew) and his cohorts have made it the sole source on moral issues, thus, breaking with Catholic doctrine.
The wineskin metaphor is powerful. I am finding it impossible to think of any institutionalized religion that would not qualify as old wineskin. New wine? Honesty without fear or favour? Every which way we look we find dishonesty. I sometimes think that frightened people can be manipulated to believe anything. We live in a matrix of fear engendered and cultivated by the mass media. We – the mass of ordinary people – are a manufactured product, a rabble of cowards for whom honesty has become an act of extreme courage. The new Pope? How strange was the decision of the old Pope to resign? The rot has been there for a long time. An important example is Pope Leo X (born Giovanni di Lorenzo de’ Medici, son of Lorenzo the Magnificent) who ran the indulgence selling racket which rightly offended Martin Luther. The origins of the de Medici family are vague. Were they crypto Jews? Who knows? Without doubt, that particular Pope facilitated the Reformation. Does it matter? One way or the other, the Roman Catholic Church brought about its own break up through its own sinfulness, its extreme corruption. And look at us now. Extreme corruption everywhere – rulers of “Christian” countries, “Muslim” countries, “Buddhist” countries, you name it. The world champions of dishonesty are plainly Jews. But, boy oh boy, there is no shortage of gentiles dancing to their tune.
Call Frankie the Faux either a StEWge or JEWge. With a Jesuit as pope – every “thinking Catholic” (Yeah, i know, a contradiction of terms) suffers a chronic case of Hebrew Jebbies
Yes, very well put. That is the conventional Protestant narrative which citizens of Protestant countries hear all the time. Unfortunately, they are unlikely to appreciate that Luther was a nut and a liar. King Henry VIII was a genocidal maniac and sex fiend. All, so much better than the de Medicis.
ed note–lol. Ahh yes, a trip down ol’ memory lane, when I myself was part of the ‘Church militant’ and was plying all the old arguments against Protestants in ‘apologising’ for the past of my church. The same line of argument as you George–Luther was crazy. Luther was insane’ Luther was neurotic. Henry VIII was a genocidal maniac and a sex fiend.
All of that may be true, but it doesn’t change the scope of what’s being discussed here, does it now?
After a while, it became an exercise in the ridiculous. I found myself spending more time trafficking in character assassination of those deemed ‘enemies of Catholicism’ than I did in debating the facts. So much easier to throw mud than it is to use your brain intelligently. After all, everyone has a mouth, but not everyone has an intellect.
And the facts are these–Jesus was an anti-Judaic, and they–the Jews–killed Him for it. The present Pope–as well as all his predecessors of the last 50 years–have been in bed with the Synagogue and now we have popes lighting menorahs and talking about the ‘commonalities’ of Judaism and Christianity.
As Jesus said, in warning about co-mixing the two opposites–‘no man can serve 2 masters’, and the evidence of the wisdom of his statement is true. We have an emasculated, denuded church that will not, repeat–WILL NOT–stand up to the Jews and their bloodthirsty madness, but instead talk about global warming and sponsor hand-holding sessions with those who are sworn enemies of JC.
Now, George, if you are anything like I was, no doubt you will fire back with something absolutely inane and which has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the factual statements I made and done in the hopes of derailing an uncomfortable debate on your part. think the Jews have a similar tactic of their own which they have honed to near perfection, and they call it ‘hasbara’.
Brillian analysis. I like the citations to Scripture and other learned texts. Can I quote you?
People are speaking here about contradictions in the texts known as the bible. When you study it in latin there are no contradictions. Only in English bibles do you find this. They are translated from a different set of texts known as the massorah/received texts/ masoretic texts. They were rewritten in the 6th century and later by the Talmudic scribes and pharisees spoken of in the texts. The Latin vulgate tells an entirely different story than the masoretic texts that a KJV and variants are based on. Here are two entries directly from the Jewish encyclopedia that confirm what I have just stated. Between themselves(Jewish rebbi) they state these truths but tell the public to trust the masoretic texts they revised. Read them closely.
JEROME (EUSEBIUS HIERONYMUS SOPHRONIUS):
Table of Contents
His Teachers.
His Knowledge of Hebrew.
Exegesis.
Use of Noṭariḳon.
Traditions.
Church father; next to Origen, who wrote in Greek, the most learned student of the Bible among the Latin ecclesiastical writers, and, previous to modern times, the only Christian scholar able to study the Hebrew Bible in the original. The dates of his birth and death are not definitely known; but he is generally assumed to have lived from 337 to 420. Born in Stridon, Dalmatia, he went as a youth to Rome, where he attended a school of grammar and rhetoric. He then traveled in Gaul and Italy, and in 373 went to Antioch, where he became the pupil of Apollinaris of Laodicea, the representative of the exegetical school of Antioch; subsequently, however, Jerome did not accept the purely historical exegesis of this school, but adopted more nearly the typic-allegoric method of Origen. From Antioch he went to Chalcis in the Syrian desert, where he led the strictly ascetic life of a hermit, in atonement for the sins of his youth. Here to facilitate his intercourse with the people, he was obliged to learn Syriac; and this language doubtless aided him later in his Hebrew studies (“Epistolæ,” xvii. 2; yet comp. ib. lxxviii. and comm. on Jer. ii. 18). Here also he began with great labor to study Hebrew, with the aid of a baptized Jew (ib. cxxv. 12), and it may be he of whom he says (ib. xviii. 10) that he was regarded by Jewish scholars as a Chaldean and as a master of the interpretation of Scripture (ib. cxxv. 12). On a second visit to Antioch Jerome was ordained a priest. He then went to Constantinople, and thence to Rome, where he undertook literary work for Pope Damasus, beginning at the same time his own Biblical works (c. 383). He finally settled at Bethlehem in Palestine (c. 385), founding a monastery there which he directed down to his death. This outline of Jerome’s life indicates that he was a master of Latin and Greek learning, and by studying furthermore Syriac and Hebrew united in his person the culture of the East and of the West.
His Teachers.
It was in Bethlehem that he devoted himself most seriously to Hebrew studies. Here he had as teachers several Jews, one of whom taught him reading (“Hebræus autem qui nos in veteris instrumenti lectione erudivit”; comm. on Isa. xxii. 17); the peculiar pronunciation of Hebrew often found in Jerome’s works was probably therefore derived from this Jew. Jerome was not satisfied to study with any one Jew, but applied to several, choosing always the most learned (preface to Hosea: “diceremque . . . quid ab Hebræorum magistris vix uno et altero acceperim”; “Epistolæ,” lxxiii. 9 [i. 443]: “hæc ab eruditissimis gentis illius didicimus”). With similar words Jerome is always attempting to inspire confidence in his exegesis; but they must not be taken too literally, as he was wont to boast of his scholarship. However, he was doubtless in a position to obtain the opinions of several Jews; for he often refers to “quidam Hebræorum.” He even traveled in the province of Palestine with his Jewish friends, in order to become better acquainted with the scenes of Biblical history (preface to “Paralipomena,” i.); one of them was his guide (preface to Nahum).
Of only three of his teachers is anything definite known. One, whom he calls “Lyddæus,” seems to have taught him only translation and exegesis, while the traditions (“midrash”) were derived from another Jew. Lyddæus spoke Greek, with which Jerome was conversant (comm. on Ezek. ix. 3; on Dan. vi. 4). Lyddæus, in interpreting Ecclesiastes, once referred to a midrash which appeared to Jerome absurd (comm. on Eccl. iii. 1); Jerome thought him fluent, but not always sound; this teacher was therefore a haggadist. He was occasionally unwilling to explain the text (ib. v. 1). Jerome was frequently not satisfied with his teacher’s exegesis, and disputed with him; and he often says that he merely read the Scriptures with him (comm. on Eccl. iv. 14, v. 3; “Onomastica Sacra,” 90, 12).
Another teacher is called “Baranina,” i.e., “Bar Ḥanina,” of Tiberias. He acquainted Jerome with a mass of Hebrew traditions, some of which referred especially to his native place, Tiberias. He came at night only, and sometimes, being afraid to come himself, he sent a certain Nicodemus (“Epistolæ,” lxxxiv. 3 [i. 520]).
A third teacher, who may be called “Chaldæus,” taught Jerome Aramaic, which was necessary for the Old Testament passages and the books of the Apocrypha written in that language. This teacher of Aramaic was very prominent among the Jews, and Jerome, who had great difficulty in learning Aramaic, was very well satisfied with his instruction (prefaces to Tobit and Daniel). Jerome continued to study with Jews during the forty years that he lived in Palestine (comm. on Nahum ii. 1; “a quibus [Judæis] non modico tempore eruditus”). His enemies frequently took him to task for his intercourse with the Jews; but he answered: “How can loyalty to the Church be impaired merely because the reader is informed of the different ways in which a verse is interpreted by the Jews?” (“Contra Rufinum,” ii. 476). This sentence characterizes the Jewish exegesis of that time. Jerome’s real intention in studying the Hebrew text is shown in the following sentence: “Why should I not be permitted, . . . for the purpose of confuting the Jews, to use those copies of the Bible which they themselves admit to be genuine? Then when the Christians dispute with them, they shall have no excuse” (ib. book iii.; ed. Vallarsi, ii. 554).
His Knowledge of Hebrew.
Jerome’s knowledge of Hebrew is considerable only when compared with that of the other Church Fathers and of the general Christian public of his time. His knowledge was really very defective. Although he pretends to have complete command of Hebrew and proudly calls himself a “trilinguis” (being conversant with Latin, Greek, and Hebrew), he did not, in spite of all his hard work, attain to the proficiency of his simple Jewish teachers. But he did not commit those errors into which the Christians generally fell; as he himself says: “The Jews boast of their knowledge of the Law when they remember the several names which we generally pronounce in a corrupt way because they are barbaric and we do not know their etymology. And if we happen to make a mistake in the accent [the pronunciation of the word as affected by the vowels] and in the length of the syllables, lengthening short ones and shortening long ones, they laugh at our ignorance, especially as shown in aspiration and in some letters pronounced with a rasping of the throat” (comm. on Titus iii. 9). Jerome not only acquired the peculiar hissing pronunciation of the Jews, but he also—so he declares—corrupted his pronunciation of Latin thereby, and ruined his fine Latin style by Hebraisms (preface to book iii., comm. on Galatians; “Epistolæ,” xxix. 7; ed. Vallarsi, i. 143). This statement of Jerome’s is not to be taken very seriously, however. In his voluminous works Jerome transcribed in Latin letters a mass of Hebrew words, giving thereby more or less exact information on the pronunciation of Hebrew then current. But, although he studied with the Jews, his pronunciation of Hebrew can not therefore be unhesitatingly regarded as that of the Jews, because he was led by the course of his studies, by habit, and by ecclesiastical authority to follow the Septuagint in regard to proper names, and this version had long before this become Christian.
Jerome shared the belief of the Hebrews and of most of the Church Fathers that Hebrew was the parent of all the other languages (“Opera,” vi. 730b). He sometimes distinguishes Hebrew from Aramaic (preface to Tobit), but sometimes appears to call both Syriac. In reference to Isa. xix. 18 (comm. ad loc.; comp. “Epistolæ,” cviii.) he speaks also of the “Canaanitish” language, as being closely related to Hebrew and still spoken in five cities of Egypt, meaning thereby either Aramaic or Syriac. In explaining “yemim” (Gen. xxxvi. 24), he correctly states in regard to the Punic language that it was related to Hebrew (“Quæstiones Hebraicæ in Genesin”). His knowledge of Hebrew appears most clearly in his two important works, that on the Hebrew proper names and that on the situation of the places mentioned in the Bible; in his extensive commentaries on most of the books of the Old Testament; and especially in his chief work, the new Latin translation of the Bible from the Hebrew original (see Vulgate). Through these works he not only became an authority on the Bible during his lifetime, but he remained a leading teacher of Christianity in the following ages, because down to very recent times no one could go direct to the original text as he had done.
Jerome’s importance was recognized by the Jewish authors of the Middle Ages, and he is frequently cited by David Ḳimḥi; also by Abu al-Walid (“Sefer ha-Shorashim,” s.v. and ), Abraham ibn Ezra (on Gen. xxxvii. 35), Samuel b. Meïr (on Ex. xx. 13), Naḥmanides (on Gen. xli. 45), Joseph Albo (iii. 25), and the polemic Isaac Troki (in “Ḥizzuḳ Emunah”). Jerome is also important because he could consult works which have since disappeared, as, for example, Origen’s “Hexapla” (he says that he had seen a copy of the Hebrew Ben Sira, but he seems not to have used it); he had Aramaic copies of the Apocryphal books Judith and Tobit; and the so-called Hebrew Gospel, which was written in Hebrew script in the Aramaic language, he translated into Greek and Latin (“Contra Pelagianos,” iii. 2; “De Viris Illustribus,” ch. ii.; comm. on Matt. xii. 13).
Exegesis.
Jerome’s exegesis is Jewish in spirit, reflecting the methods of the Palestinian haggadists. He expressly states, in certain cases, that he adopts the Jewish opinion, especially when he controverts Christian opponents and errors (comm. on Joel iv. 11: “nobis autem Hebræorum opinionem sequentibus”); he reproduces the Jewish exegesis both in letter (comm. on Amos v. 18-19) and in substance (παραφραστικῶς; comm. on Dan. ix. 24). Hence he presents Jewish exegesis from the purely Jewish point of view. Even the language of the Haggadah appears in his commentaries, e.g., where the explanation is given in the form of question and answer (comm. on Dan. ii. 12: quærunt Hebræi”); or when he says, in explaining, “This it is that is said” (“Hoc est quod dicitur”; comp. ); or when several opinions are cited on the same subject (“alii Judæorum”); or when a disputation is added thereto (“Epistola xix. ad Hedibiam,” i. 55). He even uses technical phrases, such as “The wise men teach” (“Epistolæ,” cxxi.) or “One may read” (comm. on Nahum. iii. 8). This kind of haggadic exegesis, which is merely intended to introduce a homiletic remark, leads Jerome to accuse the Jews unjustly of being arbitrary in their interpretation of the Bible text. But he did not believe that the Jews corrupted the text, as Christians frequently accused them of doing. While at Rome he obtained from a Jew a synagogue-roll (“Epistolæ,” xxxvi. 1) because he considered the Hebrew text as the only correct one, as the “Hebraica veritas,” which from this time on he regarded as authoritative in all exegetical disputes. Jerome hereby laid down the law for Bible exegesis. Of course he recognized also some of the faults of Jewish exegesis, as, for example, the forced combination of unconnected verses (comm. on Isa. xliv. 15: “stulta contentione”); he sometimes regards his teacher’s interpretation to be arbitrary, and opposes to it his own (ib. xlix. 1). Contrary to the haggadic interpretation of the Jews, he correctly notices a difference between “Hananeel” (Jer. xxxi. 38; see comm. ad loc.) and “Hanameel” (ib. xxxii. 7). Jerome rarely employs simple historical exegesis, but, like all his contemporaries, wanders in the mazes of symbolic, allegoric, and even mystic exegesis. In his commentary on Joel i. 4 he adopts the Jewish interpretation, according to which the four kinds of locusts mean the four empires; Zech. iv. 2, in which the lamp means the Law, its flame the Messiah, and its seven branches the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit, he interprets entirely mystically.
Use of Noṭariḳon.
In his commentary on Eccl. i. 9 he even teaches the preexistence of all beings, including man. He frequently uses the NoṬariḳon, e.g., in reference to Zerubbabel (comm. on Hag. i. 1) or to Abishag (“Epistolæ,” lii. [i. 210]).
Jerome’s exegesis came in some respects like a revelation to the Christian world, and cleared up difficulties in reading the Bible; e.g., his explanation of the Hebrew alphabet (“Epistola xxx. ad Paulam,” i. 144) or that of the ten names of God (“Epistola xxv. ad Marcellam,” i. 128). It must always be remembered that in many portions of his allegorical exegesis Jerome is entirely in agreement with Hellenistic methods; for instance, in the explanation of the four colors in the sanctuary of the desert (“Epistola lxiv. ad Fabiolam,” i. 364; comp. Philo, “De Monarchia,” § 2; Josephus, “B. J.” v. 4, § 4; idem, “Ant.” iii. 7, § 7). Jerome’s commentaries are of small value for Old Testament criticism, on account of the inclination to allegorize which leads him to a free treatment of the text, as well as on account of his polemics against Judaism (comp. Jew. Encyc. iv. 81, s.v. Church Fathers).
Traditions.
Jerome’s works are especially important for Judaism because of the numerous Jewish traditions found in them, particularly in his work “Quæstiones Hebraicæ in Genesin.” Jerome designates by the general name “tradition” all supplementary and edifying stories found in the Midrash and relating to the personages and events of the Bible; these stories may fitly be designated as historic haggadah. Here also Jerome affirms that he faithfully reproduces what the Jews have told him (comm. on Amos iv. 16: “hoc Hebræi autumant et sicut nobis ab ipsis traditum est, nostris fideliter exposuimus”). He designates the Jewish legend of Isaiah’s martyrdom as an authentic tradition (comm. on Isa. lvii. 1: “apud cos certissima traditio”), while he doubts the story of Jeremiah’s crucifixion because there is no reference to it in Scripture (comm. on Jer. xi. 18). Jerome often remarks that a certain story is not found in Scripture, but only in tradition (comm. on Isa. xxii. 15), and that these traditions originated with the “magistri,” i.e., the Rabbis (comm. on Ezek. xlv. 10); that these “fables” are incorporated into the text on the strength of one word (comm. on Dan. vi. 4); and that many authors are cited to confirm this tradition. All these remarks exactly characterize the nature of the Haggadah. Jerome apparently likes these traditions, though they sometimes displease him, and then he contemptuously designates them as “fabulæ” or “Jewish fables,” “ridiculous fables” (comm. on Ezek. xxv. 8), “ridiculous things” (on Eccl. iii. 1), or “cunning inventions” (on Zech. v. 7). Jerome’s opinion of these traditions is immaterial at the present time. The important point is that he quotes them; for thereby the well-known traditions of the Midrash are obtained in Latin form, and in this form they are sometimes more concise and comprehensible—in any case they are more interesting. Moreover, many traditions that appear from the sources in which they are found to be of a late date are thus proved to be of earlier origin. Jerome also recounts traditions that are no longer found in canonical Jewish sources, as well as some that have been preserved in the Jewish and Christian Apocrypha. It is, furthermore, interesting to note that Jerome had read some of these traditions; hence they had been committed to writing in his time.
Although other Church Fathers quote Jewish traditions none equal Jerome in the number and faithfulness of their quotations. This Midrash treasure has unfortunately not yet been fully examined; scholars have only recently begun to investigate this field. Nor have Jerome’s works been properly studied as yet in reference to the valuable material they contain on the political status of the Jews of Palestine, their social life, their organization, their religiousviews, their Messianic hopes, and their relations to Christians.
Jerome was no friend to the Jews, although he owed them much; he often rebukes them for their errors; reproaches them for being stiff-necked and inimical to the Christians; controverts their views in the strongest terms; curses and reviles them; takes pleasure in their misfortune; and even uses against them both the books that he has cunningly obtained from them and the knowledge he has derived therefrom. Thus Jews and Christians agree that he is eminent only for his scholarship, and not for his character. See Church Fathers.
Bibliography:
O. Zöckler, Hieronymus, Sein Leben und Sein Wirken, Gotha, 1865;
A. Thierry, St. Jérôme, Paris, 1867, 1875;
Grützmacher, Hieronymus, part i., Leipsic, 1901;
Nowack, Die Bedeutung des Hieronymus für die A. T. Textkritik, 1875, pp. 6-10;
S. Krauss, in Magyar Zsidó Szémle, 1890, vii., passim;
idem, in J. Q. R. vi. 225-261;
M. Rahmer, Die Hebräischen Traditionen in den Werken des Hieronymus, i., Breslau, 1861;
ii., Berlin, 1898;
idem, in Ben Chananja, vii.;
idem, in Monatsschrift, 1865, 1866, 1867, 1868;
idem, in Grätz Jubelschrift;
Siegfried, Die Aussprache des Hebräischen bei Hieronymus, in Stade’s Zeitschrift, iv. 34-82;
Spanier, Exegetische Beiträge, zu Hieronymus, Bern, 1897;
W. Bacher, Eine Angebliche Lücke im Hebräischen Wissen des Hieronymus, in Stade’s Zeitschrift, xxii. 114-116.
VULGATE:
Table of Contents
Earlier Latin Translations.
Jerome’s Bible-Revision Work.
Jerome’s Bible-Translation Work.
Jerome’s Translation in Later Times.
Earlier Latin Translations.
Latin version of the Bible authorized by the Council of Trent in 1546 as the Bible of the Roman Catholic Church. It was the product of the work of Jerome, one of the most learned and scholarly of the Church leaders of the early Christian centuries. The earliest Latin version of the Scriptures seems to have originated not in Rome, but in one of Rome’s provinces in North Africa. An Old Latin version of the New Testament was extant in North Africa in the second century C.E., and it is thought that a translation of the Old Testament into Latin was made in the same century. Indeed, Tertullian (c. 160-240) seems to have known a Latin Bible. There were at least two early Latin translations, one called the African and the other the European. These, based not on the Hebrew, but on the Greek, are thought to have been made before the text-work of such scholars as Origen, Lucian, and Hesychius, and hence would be valuable for the discovery of the Greek text with which Origen worked. But the remains of these early versions are scanty. Jerome did not translate or revise several books found in the Latin Bible, and consequently the Old Latin versions were put in their places in the later Latin Bible. These Old Latin versions are represented in the books of Esdras, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, and Maccabees, and in the additions to Daniel and Esther. The Psalter also exists in a revised form, and the books of Job and Esther, of the Old Latin, are found in some ancient manuscripts. Only three other fragmentary manuscripts of the Old Testament in Old Latin are now known to be in existence.
Jerome was born of Christian parents about 340-342, at Stridon, in the province of Dalmatia. He received a good education, and carried on his studies at Rome, being especially fascinated by Vergil, Terence, and Cicero. Rhetoric and Greek also claimed part of his attention. At Trier in Gaul he took up theological studies for several years. In 374 he traveled in the Orient. In a severe illness he was so impressed by a dream that he dropped secular studies. But his time had not been lost. He turned his brilliant mind, trained in the best schools of the day, to sacred things. Like Moses and Paul, he retired to a desert, that of Chalcis, near Antioch, where he spent almost five years in profound study of the Scriptures and of himself. At this period he sealed a friendship with Pope Damasus, who later opened the door to him for the great work of his life. In 379 Jerome was ordained presbyter at Antioch. Thence he went to Constantinople, where he was inspired by the expositions of Gregory Nazianzen. In 382 he reached Rome, where he lived about three years in close friendship with Damasus.
Jerome’s Bible-Revision Work.
For a long time the Church had felt the need of a good, uniform Latin Bible. Pope Damasus at first asked his learned friend Jerome to prepare a revised Latin version of the New Testament. In 383 the Four Gospels appeared in a revised form, and at short intervals thereafter the Acts and the remaining books of the New Testament. These latter were very slightly altered by Jerome. Soon afterward he revised the Old Latin Psalter simply by the use of the Septuagint. The name given this revision was the “Roman Psalter,” in distinction from the “Psalterium Vetus.” The former was used in Rome and Italy down to Pius V. (1566-72), when it was displaced by the “Gallican Psalter” (so called because first adopted in Gaul), another of Jerome’s revisions (made about 387), based on many corrections of the Greek text by reference to other Greek versions. About theend of 384 Pope Damasus died, and Jerome left Rome to travel and study in Bible lands. In 389 he settled at Bethlehem, assumed charge of a monastery, and prosecuted his studies with great zeal. He secured a learned Jew to teach him Hebrew for still better work than that he had been doing. His revision work had not yet ceased, for his Book of Job appeared as the result of the same kind of study as had produced the “Gallican Psalter.” He revised some other books, as Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, and Chronicles, of which his revisions are lost, though their prefaces still exist.
Jerome’s Bible-Translation Work.
But Jerome soon recognized the poor and unsatisfactory state of the Greek texts that he was obliged to use. This turned his mind and thought to the original Hebrew. Friends, too, urged him to translate certain books from the original text. As a resultant of long thought, and in answer to many requests, Jerome spent fifteen years, 390 to 405, on a new translation of the Old Testament from the original Hebrew text. He began with the books of Samuel and Kings, for which he wrote a remarkable preface, really an introduction to the entire Old Testament. He next translated the Psalms, and then the Prophets and Job. In 394-396 he prepared a translation of Esdras and Chronicles. After an interval of two years, during which he passed through a severe illness, he took up his arduous labors, and produced translations of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs. The Pentateuch followed next, and the last canonical books, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, and Esther, were completed by 404. The Apocryphal parts of Daniel and Esther, and Tobit and Judith, all translated from the Aramaic, completed Jerome’s great task. The remainder of the Apocryphal books he left without revision or translation, as they were not found in the Hebrew Bible.
Jerome’s Translation in Later Times.
Jerome happily has left prefaces to most of his translations, and these documents relate how he did his work and how some of the earlier books were received. Evidently he was bitterly criticized by some of his former best friends. His replies show that he was supersensitive to criticism, and often hot-tempered and stormy. His irritability and his sharp retorts to his critics rather retarded than aided the reception of his translation. But the superiority of the translation gradually won the day for most of his work. The Council of Trent in 1546 authorized the Latin Bible, which was by that time a strange composite. The Old Testament was Jerome’s translation from the Hebrew, except the Psalter, which was his Gallican revision; of the Apocryphal books, Judith and Tobit were his translations, while the remainder were of the Old Latin version. The New Testament was Jerome’s revision of the Old Latin translation. These translations and revisions of translations, and old original translations, constitute the Vulgate. See also Jerome.
Bibliography:
Grützmacher, Hieronymus: eine Bibliographische Studie, vol. i., Leipsic, 1901;
S. Berger, Histoire de la Vulgate Pendant les Premières Siècles du Moyen Age, Paris, 1893;
H. J. White, Codex Amiatinus and Its Birth-place, in Studia Biblica et Ecclesiastica, vol. ii., Oxford, 1890;
E. Nestle, Ein Jubiläum der Lateinischen Bibel, Tübingen, 1892;
E. von Dobschütz, Studien zur Textkritik der Vulgata, Leipsic, 1894;
Hastings, Dict. Bible. See fuller bibliography in S. Berger’s work, mentioned above.
as anyone can see now from the two entries, if you want to see what a true Hebrew bible states you must refer to the Latin vulgate. I suggest all do it to understand.
Shame on the pope. He recognized Palestine as a State? BS. What State when the Jews have already taken more than 90% of the original Palestinian Land???? That little less than10% is divided into the West Bank and Gaza and they are all blockaded, occupied by sea, ground and air. Does that looks like a 2 state solution?? This is diabolical and the Pope just does what he is told to do by the Jewish criminal cabal just like our politicians in Washington.
In those writings it says that the ‘jews’ were divided.
I believe that describes the atmosphere of the backdrop to the writings in that not all the ‘jews’ were on the same page. There were differing sects and alignments, differing versions of religion, and different customs among the ;jews’. So I don’t believe that all ‘jews’ in unison and one voice would have called out for a crucifixion.
I believe that where it is written that all the ‘jews’ cried out for a crucifixion, it is to mean that all the ‘jews’ that were present cried out for a crucifixion.
Not only are there contradictions in the books, but also amongst them are contradictions and impossibilities as it relates to lake Tiberias, otherwise known as the Sea of Galilee, and it’s geography.
See the bible come to life at the Magdala Center in Israel.
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/insideisrael/2014/February/Magdala-Center-Brings-Gospel-to-Life/
I know the pope knows the talmud backwards…speshally the part about Jesus in hell boiling in his own shit
Mr Korchan-iski, your use of the term “Democrat Media”, and calling my writing “like a Left Wing rag” displays shocking ignorance. Lol, taking on Vatican 2 Catholics is far from that !/Pope/Church /
The media is not Democrat, but Jewish. I presume you love Kosher,Conservative FOX, Limbaugh,and all the rest of the Israeli run New Right who where since,”The Jew Old Left”. LoL
Nor was Father Couglin who was RIGHT, on everything stopped by the Pope ! LOL.
His mailing permit was pulled by the Communist Jew infiltrated ‘Democrat’,Roosevelt administration, after the President pulled the false flag Pearl Harbor action,getting the US into WW 2.
Plus his Bishop in Michigan was bribed by the government.
It is obvious you are in way over your head here at the Ugly Truth. All you can do,is run to labels, clichés and name calling.
Coughlin opposed the International Jewish Banking systems rule,and interest charging, as the old Catholic Church demanded.
He opposed WW2,which was Jew instigated. Only US entry into the Jew “Left Wing”, inspired conflict ‘silenced him”.
Your defense of Catholic Jew idolizing post Vatican 2, (Left Wing), now called “Conservative”, bythe blind,into the Left/Right Jew con game, like you, is also telling.
Perhaps you should shut off. the phonies in EWTN,
Another BS is the lie that the Jew run FDR, or Churchill (along with Stalin, Masons of high rank), offered the Pope any post WW2, role….the story is a tall tale like so much out of that period.
I’m sure your unto the Holohax,and Catholic Hitler was not LOL
Some like you cannot break the Santa Claus /Pope /belief system. If the Pope/Church cannot stand up to the Jews,it has no purpose at all.
there was a split amongst the tribes. Only the southern kingdom of Judah later known as Judea were “THE JEWS”. The word Jew is a very deceptive modern word. It did not exist in biblical times and was not even used in the texts as it did not exist. The word is a really a reference to people who lived in the southern kingdom(residents). It had nothing g to do with a race of people.Just the religious law people lived under in this region.
That is way too much to read.
That is way too much to read. Regarding the editor’s note. I responded to comments about the Pope being a de Medici and all that implies. If he was bad because he was a de Medici, we can look at Luther and Henry VIII and the other so-called reformers. The editor was facts about the issues. All I have seen are accusations.
Well, at least Isaac concedes that the Pope does have a favorable disposition towards a Palestinian state. The point is that the Pope opposed the agenda of the Israeli lobby.
What is the point of mispelling my name? I use the term ‘Democrat media’ because that is demonstrably what it is. While Jews have a influence beyond their numbers, WASPs and other groups also control the popular culture. ‘Democrat’ describes the groups succinctly. I look at what the Dem ideology contains. Isn’t that bad enough? When we vote, we do not see ‘Jew’ anywhere on the ballot. We do see ‘Democrat.’ The Pope told us to get close to Jewish persons. I interpret that as a call for us to make friends with Jews. Is that bad? I had Jewish friends in college and found nothing wrong with them. Pope Pius XII saved some 800,000 Jewish lives in Italy from the German National Socialists. As a result, the chief Rabbi of Rome (name Zolli as I recall) converted to Catholicism. Was the Pope acting like a lap-dog for the Jewish bankers? Ardenz claims that Jews instigated WWII. Can he name names and explain exactly what they said and did to instigate the war. Of course, I grew up with the idea that Hitler attacked Poland and thereby forced England and France to honor their treaty committments to Poland. Perhaps, Ardenz can name for me the Jews that influenced Hitler to attack Poland.
ed note–George as of yet, we have not figured out ‘what’ you are. As you can imagine, given the material we cover on this site and the manner in which we choose to cover it, we are the target of all sorts of types whose success in perpetrating their evil depends upon keeping people confused and scurrying around mentally and who therefore wander into the camp here wearing all sorts of disguises, including supporters of the Catholic church.
I am not saying this is what you are, all I am saying is that at this point, your disposition lends towards the aforementioned possibility.
Nevertheless, in the interests of being fair and if giving you the benefit of the doubt, we’ll assume for the moment you are just well-meaning George who is yet to understand the subtler but more important nuances associated with the subject matter that this website deals with–Zionism, Jewish extremism, etc.
1. There is nothing to be gained, in a personal or collective sense, in debating things from a ‘democratic vs republican’ or ‘conservative vs liberal’ standpoint, as both sides are now 2 wings on the same bird of prey, which is organized Jewry.
2. As a Catholic, married to the same woman for 25 years and with 10 children, nevertheless there is NOTHING to be gained from arguing things from a ‘catholic’ perspective, as the church has now become an adjunct of the synagogue. As much as you may like Francis and his predecessors, the fact is, they have all abandoned Jesus’ mission and His original message as much as the apostles abandoned Him following the events of the Last Supper.
Now, as much as we all appreciate a good debate here, at the same time we are absolutely anathema to wasting time with running around in circles in discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. If this is where your interests lie, then it is better that you go now of your own accord before the decision gets made here to push you out, which we are forced to do quite often here.
Mark Glenn answered you George brilliantly. You have no depth of knowledge, and a closed mind ,running in circles.
People like you…I presume a Kosher Conservative ,is why I left the Church, and escaped the Israel owned Republican Party.
Your everything that is wrong with the world-ignorance rapped in sanctimony
You hit the wrong place here at the Ugly Truth.
Because that what we do…find the truth, and say it loudly.
You repeat superficial nonsense.
The worst bunk, “The Pope saved 800 000 Jews from National Socialists”.
Lol.
You fall for that huge number ? The 6 million fraud ? The Holocaust is a Jew lie.
The International Red Cross Report of 1948 stated. ” Upon inspection of camps for detained enemy civilians no homocidal equptment found”.
About 25O O00 Jews died in We 2. None gassed,. My God ! 800.000 thousand ! Not that many evenlived in.Germany ! Let alone Italy !
Who told you that ? A senile Gay Priest? Jew film?
Hey George- I and many on the Ugly Truth are NATIONAL SOCIALISTS ! Add German to me too !
Now wonder back to the bar,old folks club, or Ceeeeoatholic Church bake sale.
Your repeating of Judaic/Ceeeeeatholic Propaganda is not of any value here.
King James was a MASON. Which is simply ZIONISM, Pharisee-ism and Talmudic edicts for the uninformed goyim. Papacy was finally stolen by the Masons w/ John Paul Vl. Been growing in apostasy since.
Geneva Bible (pre KJV) is supposed to be best, others say Rheims Bible. Any input here? None of the modern versions are of much interest to me.
The initial Red Cross figure for the dead of all races, all peoples, all groups, subsequently revised very slightly higher at a later date, was just 271,301, so 250,000 Jews did not die at all, vastly fewer than that.
http://just-another-inside-job.blogspot.co.uk/2007/06/official-records-from-international-red.html
Your indulgence Mark…one more time to answer. The International Jews declared war in Germany in 1933, and the Rothchlds sponsored a drunk,discredited old Churchill to Oudh for war. “The Jews fitcrd he to declare war” Chamberlain to Ambassador Kennedy.
Hitler was seeking the return of the German City of Dsnzig,and other German areas.
Dsnxig voted 100 % to return to the Reich The Poles stuoidly refused negotiations, because the British Empire backed them up. The Jew media /banking wanted that war,and said do. ‘Who bounded Poland”, Hitler said upon liberating Danzig
The 4 the Duke Of Wellington, said,”The Jews started this war”.
Hitler had removed the International Jew rule of the economy, His unemployment rate-2 %…..the same with Japan. This during a world Jew depression. The Jews needed to stop that example.
You George are older,and Polish as I assumed.
Your entire world view kosher.
See Hitlers War, David Irving, The Greatest Story Never Told, You Tube. Hitlers War, What Historisns Neglect To Mention, You Tube. The Unnecessary War, Pat Buchanan. The Nationalist Solution To Money, You Tube. The End Of Sovereign America, You Tube.
Grappa -not that I believe anything that is written in any Jew propaganda book but the “”Great Grand Master “” of the UK is a Royal they are all in it. As many here and on Rebel are saying -The Masonic Lodge= JUDAISM many Jews are members and it is just another layer of controlling the 99 % . Not good at your job -join the masons and be promoted over much more qualified people -no joke ! watched it happen many times .