I’m currently reading The Jerome Conspiracy, amazon.com/Jerome-Conspiracy-Michael-Wood/dp/0595469167/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1300992033&sr=8-1. Has anyone read it? I’m finding it very interesting. It’s written in a novel format, but is about a devout Evangelical couple whose only son (gay) dies clearly not professing Christ, their initial depression with him going to hell, and their struggle with… Well, I won’t ruin it for you, but what the author uncovers in a novel format is very compelling.
So, has anyone read this book? And what do you think of it?
Sherman, As I said on Catherine’s Intro thread, I read this book last year and, although the author’s lack of credentials put me on guard, I checked out a lot of his references, especially to the septuagint, and they were all accurate. I thought he presented a good case theologically and pastorally for EU. Some parts of his argument seemed weaker than others and I thought he was forcing some of his jigsaw pieces to fit at times. I’d like to see a reputable scholar’s confirmation of some of the more obscure evidence - the dead sea scrolls bit in particular. Overall, I’d give the book a slilghtly cautious recommendation.
Well, I finished it last night and thoroughly enjoyed it. And I took time to verify some of the information yesterday and already knew that much of it was verifiable. His comparison of before and after Jerome was interesting, and his information concerning the out-right deception that Jerome apparently used to promote his agenda of affirming endless punishment. I would have added to the Before/After Jerome list, Before Jerome the Bible had “Hell” in it “0” times. After Jerome the Bible (Latin Vulgate) had the word Hell (Infernum) in it “110” times. He did this by mistranslating 3 words (Sheol, Hades, and Gehenna), and adding 2 Peter which has the word “Tartaroo” in it. To me that’s the most evident evidence againt Jerome. It indicates 1 of 2 things, either 1) He was an ignorant inept translator, or 2) he had an agenda to affirm Hell though it meant mistranslating scripture. And He wasn’t ignorant or an inept translator, but widely respected. He had an agenda and that was to make the doctrine of Hell a foundational doctrine of the church, and he succeded.
The book was also written well and a quick, easy read. I enjoyed it and recommend it and would like it added to the recommended books on this forum.
Um… to be fair, Infernum is simply Latin for “the Pit”. It’s an uncontroversial translation for Sheol and Hades.
If it comes to that, the word “hell” comes from Scandanavian languages, and basically means the same thing, a dark pit. (So one of the chief Norse deities for death was the goddess “Hel”–no doubt a bit of poetic gender humor there with the dark pit being a womb. )
If Jerome was promoting a particular meaning attached to “infernum” at that time, then that’s another thing. But the term itself is neutral enough. As is Norse “hel” for that matter.
Thanks for the correction Jason. I “assumed” infernum meant “fiery pit”, as in “inferno” in English. It’s interesting then that the Catholic Douay Rheims 1610 English translation interprets each “infernum” as “Hell”. So it seems that the concept of Hell has developed over the years.
The book claims (chapter 16 or page 74 in my edition) that Jerome deliberately mistranslated aionios in order to convey ‘endless’ punishment. For example, he used the Latin word ‘aeternum’ in Matt 25:46 '…aeternum iusti ’ = eternal punishment. Why though, does he translate ‘aionios’ as ‘seculorum’ in Eph 3:11?
Maybe because in Eph 3:11 it’s “aion” not “aionios”? That’s just a guess. I read something recently in Augustine about aionios and seculorum … I’ll see if I can find that again. I think he said that aionios is properly translate “seculorum” – having to do with ages – or something like that – I’ll find it later when I have more time.
We bought The Jerome Conspiracy and found it very captivating. I checked out some quotes from The Dead Sea Scroll Bible, and found that the foot notes which gave Cave 4 variations did correspond to the Septuagint as the author, Michael Wood, claims.
The only part that caused me to have some doubts was Wood’s seeming insistence that Jude and 2nd Peter were Jerome’s “additions” to the Bible, whereas he seems to consider The Apocalypse of Peter as valid.
Paidion, Thanks for confirming the DSS references. I agree with you about Jude, 2 Peter and Apocalypse Peter. This is where I feel he is overstating his case a bit. Also, although I like the book, I wonder if he isn’t being a bit harsh in pinning the whole conspiracy on Jerome? Its a human characteristic that we have to blame somebody for everything that goes wrong. WHODUNNIT??
I’m thinking about this because it will be coming up in Sunday’s sermon - John 9, who sinned, this man or his parents that he was born blind? There have of course been many co-conspirators down the centuries, in the development of the bad news gospel. I haven’t got Wood’s book in front of me but I expect he acknowledges this.
So, my interpretation of this all is that they felt that although aion=saeculum, aionion does not always mean secular as it can have a greater meaning. In Eph 3, “aion” is used, obviously talking of the purpose of this world, therefore “the Latins” (Jerome?) chose secular, while in other places with “aionios” where it was felt that secular would give too limited a meaning, he chooses to use eternal.
Concerning 2 Peter, it does seem to me that the evidence of it not being written by Peter is substantial, and it does give a different view of end time realities than does the rest of scripture, seeming to reinterpret key points, the end of creation being fire and destruction instead of reconciliation, victory, and restoration. And I’ll have to reread what he said about the Apocalypse of Peter.
Yes, it is true, Sherman, that 2nd Peter was one of several NT books which were rejected by the early church or at least disputed. But then Clement’s letter to the Corninthians, written shortly after Paul and Peter’s death, was widely read in the churches. Actually, it would make a powerful addition to the New Testament, in spite of Clement’s seeming belief in the Phoenix bird. That is no reason to reject the writing. Jude also believed the book of Enoch was written by the historic Enoch (“the seventh from Adam”) when clearly it was not. Moderns consider it to have been written several hundred years before Christ.
Augustine wrote:And when it is said, “And I will give to thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land in which thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession,” if it troubles any one whether this is to be held as fulfilled, or whether its fulfilment may still be looked for, since no kind of earthly possession can be everlasting for any nation whatever, let him know that the word translated everlasting, by our writers is what the Greeks term αἰώ·νιον, which is derived from αἰὼ·ν, the Greek for sæculum, an age. But the Latins have not ventured to translate this by secular, lest they should change the meaning into something widely different. For many things are called secular which so happen in this world as to pass away even in a short time; but what is termed αἰω·νιον either has no end, or lasts to the very end of this world.
**This quote from Augustine - he thinks aionian means eternal. What language was Augustine most conversant in?
**
I can’t understand the author’s reliance on the Apocalypse of Peter. There seem to be two versions of it. One is an Ethiopian version which has an ending in which everyone is saved in the end. The other one is an Egyptian version in which people are left in hell. So it seems to me the Apocalypse of Peter is problematic as a defense of universal reconciliation.
I wonder if they are purgatory for the Lord also? I think so.
)