You’re misunderstanding how the Fathers use the word “Scripture.”
Historically, the term is used in both a broad and a narrow sense—and if you miss that distinction, you’ll misread the evidence every time 🧵1
Historically, the term is used in both a broad and a narrow sense—and if you miss that distinction, you’ll misread the evidence every time 🧵1
https://twitter.com/EcciusMaximus/status/2033582839107829762
In the narrow sense, “Scripture” refers to the canonical books: inspired, certain, and binding for doctrine.
But in the broad sense, “Scripture” can include all books read in the Church for edification—even if some of them are not doctrinally authoritative. 2
But in the broad sense, “Scripture” can include all books read in the Church for edification—even if some of them are not doctrinally authoritative. 2
There is a 2-tier framework found throughout the Fathers (for that broader sense):
• Canonical books → fully authoritative, single-handedly used to establish doctrine.
• Ecclesiastical (non-canonical) books → useful, edifying, but NOT doctrinally binding in isolation. 3
• Canonical books → fully authoritative, single-handedly used to establish doctrine.
• Ecclesiastical (non-canonical) books → useful, edifying, but NOT doctrinally binding in isolation. 3
Miss this, and you flatten the entire patristic witness.
That’s exactly what’s happening in Roman Catholic appeals to Jerome.
Yes—he sometimes calls the deuteros “Scripture.”
But he also explicitly denies that they are canonical or doctrinally authoritative. 4
That’s exactly what’s happening in Roman Catholic appeals to Jerome.
Yes—he sometimes calls the deuteros “Scripture.”
But he also explicitly denies that they are canonical or doctrinally authoritative. 4
Jerome is crystal clear:
The deuterocanonical books may be read in the Church for edification—but not for establishing doctrine or settling controversy.
That's not some instance of undecipherable ambiguity. That's a category distinction within a broader grouping. 5
The deuterocanonical books may be read in the Church for edification—but not for establishing doctrine or settling controversy.
That's not some instance of undecipherable ambiguity. That's a category distinction within a broader grouping. 5
So no—Jerome citing these books as “Scripture” isn’t evidence that Jerome “changed his mind” to agree with Rome's broader canon.
It’s evidence that modern readers are importing a 1-tier definition of Scripture back into a context where a 2-tier framework was assumed. 6
It’s evidence that modern readers are importing a 1-tier definition of Scripture back into a context where a 2-tier framework was assumed. 6
If you want the receipts: I’ve compiled extensive patristic citations demonstrating this exact distinction (along with significant dissent from Rome’s later canon).
This isn’t a fringe reading—it’s a historically grounded one ⬇️ 7
This isn’t a fringe reading—it’s a historically grounded one ⬇️ 7
https://x.com/javierperd2604/status/1913114425692770454?s=20
I also address, in detail, the claim that Jerome “accepted the deuterocanon” later in life (w/ an article by @Dejmien23) ⬇️ 8
Spoiler alert: the claim doesn’t hold up.
Spoiler alert: the claim doesn’t hold up.
https://x.com/javierperd2604/status/1983171236084756520?s=20
And for those curious:
Here’s how the Lutheran tradition has historically used the deuterocanonical books—without confusing them with the canonical Scriptures.
In other words: in continuity with historic Church practice ⬇️ 9
Here’s how the Lutheran tradition has historically used the deuterocanonical books—without confusing them with the canonical Scriptures.
In other words: in continuity with historic Church practice ⬇️ 9
https://x.com/javierperd2604/status/1935030931921756284?s=20
@threadreaderapp unroll
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
