I was reading Daniel and the Revelation when I came across Jerome, it was just a short passage but I remembered some things I had been reading about him that intrigued me and left me perplexed. But lets back up and see who Jerome was...

Jerome was a Roman Christian priest, confessor, theologian and historian, and who became a Doctor of the Church. He is best known for his translation of the Bible into Latin (the Vulgate), and his commentaries on the Gospel of the Hebrews.Jerome is the second most voluminous writer (after St. Augustine) in ancient Latin Christianity.

He acquired a knowledge of Hebrew by studying with a Jew who converted to Christianity, and took the unusual position (for that time) that the Hebrew, and not the Septuagint, was the inspired text of the Old Testament. The traditional view is that he used this knowledge to translate what became known as the Vulgate, and his translation was slowly but eventually accepted in the Catholic Church. The later resurgence of Hebrew studies within Christianity owes much to him.

Although initially skeptical of Christianity, he eventually converted and went to Rome. After several years in Rome, he travelled with Bonosus to Gaul and settled in Trier where he seems to have first taken up theological studies, and where he copied his commentary on the Psalms and the treatise De synodis. Next came a stay of at least several months, or possibly years, with Rufinus at Aquileia, where he made many Christian friends.

Some of these accompanied him when he set out about 373 on a journey through Thrace and Asia Minor into northern Syria. At Antioch, where he stayed the longest, two of his companions died and he himself was seriously ill more than once. During one of these illnesses (about the winter of 373–374), he had a vision that led him to lay aside his secular studies and devote himself to God.

Interesting, but it gets even better...Seized with a desire for a life of ascetic penance, he went for a time to the desert of Chalcis, to the southwest of Antioch, known as the Syrian Thebaid, from the number of hermits inhabiting it. During this period, he seems to have found time for study and writing. He made his first attempt to learn Hebrew under the guidance of a converted Jew; and he seems to have been in correspondence with Jewish Christians in Antioch. Around this time he had copied for him a Hebrew Gospel, of which fragments are preserved in his notes, and is known today as the Gospel of the Hebrews, and which the Nazarenes considered was the true Gospel of Matthew. Jerome translated parts of this Hebrew Gospel into Greek.

Soon afterward, he went to Constantinople to pursue a study of Scripture. He was invited to the synod of 382, held in Rome to end the schism of Antioch as there were rival claimants to be the proper patriarch in Antioch. Jerome had accompanied one of the claimants, Paulinus back to Rome in order to get more support for him, and distinguished himself to the pope in Rome, and took a prominent place in his councils.

He was given duties in Rome, and he undertook a revision of the Latin Bible, to be based on the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. In Rome he was surrounded by a circle of well-born and well-educated women, including some from the noblest patrician families, such as the widows Lea, Marcella and Paula, with their daughters Blaesilla and Eustochium. The resulting inclination of these women to the monastic life and from the indulgent lasciviousness in Rome, and his unsparing criticism of the secular clergy of Rome, brought a growing hostility against him among the Roman clergy and their supporters. Soon after the death of his patron Damasus (10 December 384), Jerome was forced by them to leave his position at Rome.

Interesting, he was basically run out of town after translating the Latin Vulgate by the very men who were supposed to be the leaders of the church because he pointed out their hypocrisy.

Now look carefully at the next part....

Jerome was a scholar at a time when that statement implied a fluency in Greek. He knew some Hebrew when he started his translation project, but moved to Jerusalem to strengthen his grip on Jewish scripture commentary. A wealthy Roman aristocrat, Paula, funded his stay in a monastery in Bethlehem and he completed his translation there. He began in 382 by correcting the existing Latin language version of the New Testament, commonly referred to as the Vetus Latina. By 390 he turned to translating the Hebrew Bible from the original Hebrew, having previously translated portions from the Septuagint which came from Alexandria. He believed that the Council of Jamnia, or mainstream rabbinical Judaism, had rejected the Septuagint as valid Jewish scriptural texts because of what were ascertained as mistranslations along with its Hellenistic heretical elements.[14][15] He completed this work by 405. Prior to Jerome's Vulgate, all Latin translations of the Old Testament were based on the Septuagint not the Hebrew. Jerome's decision to use a Hebrew text instead of the previous translated Septuagint went against the advice of most other Christians, including Augustine, who thought the Septuagint inspired.

*Take note that the 'Septuagint' was from the corrupted Alexandrian manuscripts and Jerome noticed it so stayed with the original Hebrew....

Jerome was persuaded, against his will and original inclination, to include the Apocrypha in his Vulgate edition of the Scriptures. He classed the Apocrypha in a separated category than Canon. He differentiated between the canonical books and Apocrypha, which he did not recognize as authoritative Scripture.

This is admitted by the modern Catholic church:
“St. Jerome distinguished between canonical books and ecclesiastical books. The latter he judged were circulated by the Church as good spiritual reading but were not recognized as authoritative Scripture. The situation remained unclear in the ensuing centuries...For example, John of Damascus, Gregory the Great, Walafrid, Nicolas of Lyra and Tostado continued to doubt the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books. According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church at the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent” (The New Catholic Encyclopedia, The Canon).

The practice of the Church up to the time of the Reformation was to follow the judgment of Jerome who rejected the Old Testament apocrypha on the grounds that these books were never part of the Jewish canon. These were permissible to be read in the churches for the purposes of edification but were never considered authoritative for establishing doctrine. The Protestants did nothing new when they rejected the apocrypha as authoritative Scripture. It was the Roman church that rejected this tradition and ‘canonized’ the ecclesiastical books."

For the next 15 years, until he died, Jerome produced a number of commentaries on Scripture, often explaining his translation choices in using the original Hebrew rather than suspect translations. His patristic commentaries align closely with Jewish tradition. Also his commentaries touched on why he resisted the Apocrypha as being allowed to be included with Canon.

Now it really gets important especially to Adventist as we understand the prophecy of the scriptures...

The works of Hippolytus of Rome and Irenaeus greatly influenced Jerome's interpretation of prophecy. He noted the distinction between the original Septuagint and Theodotion's later substitution.

Jerome warned that those substituting false interpretations for the actual meaning of Scripture belonged to the "synagogue of the Antichrist". "He that is not of Christ is of Antichrist," he wrote to Pope Damasus I. He believed that "the mystery of iniquity" written about by Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2:7 was already in action when "every one chatters about his views." To Jerome, the power restraining this mystery of iniquity was the Roman Empire, but as it fell this restraining force was removed. He warned a noble woman of Gaul:

"He that letteth is taken out of the way, and yet we do not realize that Antichrist is near. Yes, Antichrist is near whom the Lord Jesus Christ "shall consume with the spirit of his mouth." "Woe unto them," he cries, "that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days."... Savage tribes in countless numbers have overrun all parts of Gaul. The whole country between the Alps and the Pyrenees, between the Rhine and the Ocean, has been laid waste by hordes of Quadi, Vandals, Sarmatians, Alans, Gepids, Herules, Saxons, Burgundians, Allemanni, and—alas! for the commonweal!-- even Pannonians.

His Commentary on Daniel was expressly written to offset the criticisms of Porphyry, who taught that Daniel related entirely to the time of Antiochus IV Epiphanes.

Jerome identified Rome as the fourth kingdom of chapters two and seven, but his view of chapters eight and 11 was more complex. Jerome held that chapter eight describes the activity of Antiochus Epiphanes, who is understood as a "type" of a future antichrist; 11:24 onwards applies primarily to a future antichrist but was partially fulfilled by Antiochus. Instead, he advocated that the "little horn" was the Antichrist:

"We should therefore concur with the traditional interpretation of all the commentators of the Christian Church, that at the end of the world, when the Roman Empire is to be destroyed, there shall be ten kings who will partition the Roman world amongst themselves. Then an insignificant eleventh king will arise, who will overcome three of the ten kings... after they have been slain, the seven other kings also will bow their necks to the victor."

Jerome "Says the apostle [Paul in the second epistle to the Thessalonians], ‘Unless the Roman Empire should first be desolated, and antichrist proceed, Christ will not come.’" Jerome in addition identifies the little horn power of Daniel 7:25 which 'shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws' as the power that followed after the Roman Empire, the Papacy.

In his Commentary on Daniel, he noted, "Let us not follow the opinion of some commentators and suppose him to be either the Devil or some demon, but rather, one of the human race, in whom Satan will wholly take up his residence in bodily form."[25] In interpreting 2 Thessalonians's claim that the Antichrist will sit in God's temple, Jerome preferred the view that the "temple" should be interpreted as the Church, not as the Temple in Jerusalem.

Jerome identified the four prophetic kingdoms symbolized in Daniel 2 as the Neo-Babylonian Empire, the Medes and Persians, Macedon, and Rome. Jerome identified the stone cut out without hands as "namely, the Lord and Savior".

Jerome believed that Cyrus of Persia is the higher of the two horns of the Medo-Persian ram of Daniel 8:3. The he-goat is Greece smiting Persia. Alexander is the great horn, which is then succeeded by Alexander's half brother Philip and three of his generals.

Jerome refuted Porphyry's application of the little horn of chapter seven to Antiochus. He expected that at the end of the world, Rome and its Empire would be destroyed, and partitioned among ten kingdoms before the little horn appeared.

I am amazed, Jerome read his scripture from the true text and recognized the corrupted Alexandrian text and understood prophecy after having a vision...could Jerome have been led by God after his vision, makes one think.

What a man! So he seems to have purified the Old Testament manuscripts, determining which words were fully inspired and which were not. No wonder the church made him a saint!

What still remains a mystery to me is how the New Testament writers managed to sneak in 180 passages from the Scriptures - Old Testament - that were the wording was different from the text Jerome decided was the pure text.

Did our Lord forget which words He had previously verbally inspired, so He had to inspire new words by the time the New Testament was written and where the writers stated what was previously written?

Could Jerome have been such a true saint that he knew the intentions of God better than the Bible writers?

Do you have any more comments on Saint Jerome?

He was led by God in his discernment of the true text versus the corrupted one, which Christians even at this time could see in the Alexandrian manuscripts which they rejected as Jerome's version became widely accepted and the differences became clear.

Now something I missed which has a impact to this day was that Jerome continued afterwards to write against the wanton behavior of the clergy in Rome and the vices and corruptions of the time. Jerome initially used classical authors to describe Christian concepts such as hell that indicated both his classical education and his deep shame of their associated practices, such as pederasty which was found in Rome.

Lets look at 'Pederasty' and see what it was....

Pederasty in was a socially acknowledged erotic relationship between an adult male and a younger male usually in his teens. The social custom called paiderastia by the Greeks was both idealized and criticized in ancient literature and philosophy;[4] it has no formal existence in the Homeric epics, and seems to have developed in the late 7th century BC as an aspect of Greek homosocial culture. The influence of pederasty was so pervasive that it has been called "the principal cultural model for free relationships between citizens. The English word "pederasty" in present-day usage might imply the abuse of minors in certain jurisdictions, but Athenian law, for instance, did not recognize consent and age as factors in regulating sexual behavior.

It seems like this issue still plaques the Roman Catholic church to this day...Jerome in addition to his understanding of scripture was very insightful and ahead of his time...

Was Jerome the only saint attacking evil in society? What does that have to do with the 180 references from the Old Testament which differ from Jerome's manuscript?

If Jerome could tell the difference back then, how such much more we should be able to see it today. Christians back then rejected the Alexandrian Text because comparing it now to Jerome's they could see it was not as good and had changes of meaning not just words and deletions which hid meaning. Jerome clearly saw it in all Latin translations of the Old Testament that were based on the Septuagint/ Alexandrian text and went to the Hebrew. So his purpose was true to Gods calling and especially with what he had been given and the circumstances, maybe not perfect as the Apocrypha still got in, but at least he did his best before God and man, and that's all that God asks.

If God was directing Jerome, why where there still 180 "mistakes" left in his manuscript? Or what does that tell you?

Aren't we dealing with the manuscript? Or are we dealing with his Roman Catholic sainthood?

Show me a prophet who was perfect, there are none. Even David a man after God's own heart with all the psalms of praise he wrote, was not perfect. God works with imperfect men and women, He loves us and we are His instruments. As long as our purpose is true and upright, His grace is sufficient.

The question is not what kind of man Saint Jerome was. The question is about the text he provided.

The character and integrity of the man has a great deal to do with the validity and correctness of the text. He used the gift God gave him with honesty and integrity to the utmost of his ability to create a translation true to Gods holy purpose from the best text available. What more can be asked of a man, pauper, prophet, or scholar.

He may be good, correct, doing his best for the time being, but that does not mean that I am forced to accept the words he used in his text as the ultimate in correctness.

It may seem like it to you, and yet you have not been able to convince me, for one thing because the KJV is not available in my language, and yet the Holy Spirit is able to convert a good number of people with the Bible translations available. I have a notion that a good number of these people are just as solid Seventh-day Adventists as those who mainly use the KJV.

Even if Jerome did his best, he is not Jesus to me, and Jesus reaches my people with Bible translations that are based on different manuscripts.

Just in case some of you should be looking for some support in the writings of Ellen White, you should know that EGW nowhere refers to Saint Jerome. She does make several references to another Jerome, a reformer and a friend of Huss who lived a thousand years later.

Why would she refer to anyone as "Saint?" That is Catholic tradition. I would not expect her to attach the Catholic title to anyone, unless making a specific point, such as about the Catholic teaching.

On the other hand, perhaps since Mrs. White never once references Saint Peter, she must have been talking about a more modern man whenever the name "Peter" appears--would this seem reasonable?

Of course, you could post documentation to support your suggestion of there being two Jeromes that would validate your claim that she addressed a different one than the one we would all naturally think of. Without such evidence, I think you have a difficult case to make.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I think this statement of yours is telling. It indicates an unwillingness to accept the text that Jerome produced. This may be the reason you are also suggesting Mrs. White was speaking of a different Jerome. One who has a favorite opinion to start with cannot be truly open-minded to receive an opposing view.

What is it in Jerome's text that you object to?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

GC, there must be some mistake here. The Jerome Rick is speaking of is the son of Eusebius, who lived in the 4th/5th century, while the one EGW mentions is Jerome of Prague, a contemporary of Huss, who lived in the 14th/15th century.

Perhaps I didn't see which Jerome Rick was speaking of. I know that there was some discussion earlier about a Jerome involved with the manuscripts of Scripture, and this Jerome appears to be mentioned by Ellen White. Johann seems to want to brush aside those manuscripts for some reason. For what reason, I don't know. I'm assuming that this Jerome is the same called "Saint" by the Catholic church. It seems less likely to me that the Catholics would call a friend of Huss a saint.



Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Thank you for this clarification, Rosangela. It is difficult discussing things based on misunderstandings. The first Jerome is honored by the Roman Catholic church, the Orthodox, and other churches as a venerated saint with a feast on September 30 and a Basilica in Rome. Ellen White does not even mention this Jerome anywhere in her writings.

The other Jerome is never referred to as a saint.

You are still misunderstanding things, GC. The Jerome EGW refers to defended Bible truths, not manuscripts. I have never made the least attempt to brush aside anything by Jerome of Prague. I still question why it is so important to accept the manuscripts issued by the venerated Saint of Catholicism as the only authentic ones, when there are 180 quotations in the New Testament from the Old which do not agree with the manuscripts by the Catholic Saint.

Johann,

I'm not aware of the discrepancies you refer to, or even, at this point, which manuscripts we're talking about. Could you provide some examples and some explanation?

If I'm misunderstanding, I'd be happy to have things made more clear.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

GC,

It is good that you are willing to gain an understanding of what went wrong.

Why not go back and read the explanation Rosangela has provided? When you have read her post and still do not understand, then lets try to find out why it is so difficult for you to understand certain things.