Content area
Full Text
In his preface to Samuel and Kings (the Prologus Galeatus), Jerome sets forth a theory of the Old Testament canon that allows for no room between the canonical books and the apocrypha. However, Jerome elsewhere maintained a more neutral or even positive view of some of the non-canonical books, even accepting their use within the ecclesiastical liturgy. Jerome's seemingly inconsistent attitude toward some books he classifies as "apocrypha" has led scholars to posit a development in Jerome's canonical theory, such that his earlier position was accepting of books that he later excluded, and to suppose that Jerome's use of the word "apocrypha" in the Prologus Galeatus relied on a neutral definition of the term. This paper examines the evidence for these claims and finds them wanting. While Jerome consistently regarded the books labeled "apocrypha" in the Prologus Galeatus as outside the canon, he chose to propagate an especially harsh judgment against these books especially in this preface. The confusion arising from Jerome's comments may be explained as a consequence of a multi-faceted plan to realign the church's Old Testament with the Hebrew Bible, a plan that Jerome articulates only partially on any given occasion.
(ProQuest: ... denotes non-US-ASCII text omitted.)
In the "helmeted preface" (Prologus Galeatus, henceforth Prol. Gal.) to his new Latin translation of the Hebrew Bible, Jerome explains to his readers the structure and contents of the Jewish biblical canon.1 Part of the purpose of this list is, Jerome says, ut scire valeamus, quicquid extra hos est, inter apocrifa seponendum ("so that we may know that whatever is outside these [books] should be consigned to the apocrypha"; lines 53-54). He then provides a list of books thus included among the apocrypha, these being the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, Judith, Tobit, the Shepherd of Hermas, and 1 and 2 Maccabees.2 Jerome further says of these seven books, non sunt in canone ("they are not in the canon"; line 55). These statements cause some surprise because they reflect a much more stringent attitude toward the deuterocanonical books than we find elsewhere in patristic literature or even in Jerome's own writings. Scholars often attempt to relieve this tension by positing that the Prol. Gal. represents a late stage in Jerome's thought, after he had adopted...