Catholic and Protestant Bibles

Evangelization Station ^ | Victor R. Claveau, MJ

[GonzoII]

Catholic and Protestant Bibles

The Protestant Old Testament omits seven entire books and parts of two other books. To explain how this came about, it is necessary that we go back to the ancient Jewish Scriptures. The Hebrew Bible contained only the Old Testament and from its Old Testament it excluded seven entire books—namely, Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Baruch, I and II Maccabees—and parts of Esther(1) and Daniel(2). These books, which are missing in the Jewish Bible, came into the Catholic Church with the Septuagint, a pre-Christian Greek translation of the Old Testament. In the Septuagint they are intermingled and given equal rank with other books as in the Catholic Bible. Since the Hebrew collection of the sacred books was older than the Septuagint, the books of the Hebrew Bible are known as the “protocanonical” (of the first canon, collection, catalog). The additional books and sections found in the Septuagint and in Catholic Bibles are called “deuterocanonical” (of the second canon or collection).

Jewish hostility to the deutero-canonical books is probably attributable to the conservative spirit of the times. During the last centuries which preceded the coming of Christ, the Jews of Palestine were becoming extremely reactionary under the stress of unfavorable political conditions. Since the deuterocanonical books were of comparatively recent origin and since some of them were written in Greek—the language of paganism—they naturally fell under the displeasure of the Jews. The fact, too, that the early Christians used the Septuagint in their controversies with the Jews only served to confirm the latter in their opposition to this version of the Old Testament.

Jewish hostility to the deutero-canonical books is probably attributable to the conservative spirit of the times. During the last centuries which preceded the coming of Christ, the Jews of Palestine were becoming extremely reactionary under the stress of unfavorable political conditions. Since the deuterocanonical books were of comparatively recent origin and since some of them were written in Greek—the language of paganism—they naturally fell under the displeasure of the Jews. The fact, too, that the early Christians used the Septuagint in their controversies with the Jews only served to confirm the latter in their opposition to this version of the Old Testament.

The attitude of the Catholic Church toward the deuterocanonical books is determined by a constant and well-established tradition. How well attested this translation is, and how well founded it the position of the Catholic Church, is made readily apparent by the following important facts: In the first place, the Apostles and New Testament writers quoted principally from the Septuagint. On fact, of the three hundred and fifty Old Testament quotations found in the New Testament, about three hundred are taken from the Septuagint..Some of the New Testament writers made use of the deuterocanonicals books themselves, particularly the Book of Wisdom, which seems to have been St. Paul’s favorite volume. The Epistle of James, for example, shows familiarity with the book of Sirach. If the Apostles and New Testament writers used some of the deuterocanonical books, did they not thereby endorse the entire and longer Septuagint collection?

Secondly, the deuterocanonical books were accepted in the Church from the beginning. The Epistle of Pope Clement, written before the end of the first century, makes use of Sirach and Wisdom, gives an analysis of the Book of Judith, and quotes from the deuterocanonical parts of Esther. The same is true of other early Christian writers. The oldest extant Christian Bibles contain the deuterocanonical books intermingled with the protocanonical. The oldest Christian list of Biblical books contain the deuterocanonical books; in 382 Pope Damasus in a Roman Council promulgated a formal list of Old and New Testament books and the list contains the same books as we have in our Catholic Bibles. Finally, Christian art of the first four centuries, especially that found in the catacombs and cemeteries, furnish among others the following illustrations from the deuterocanonical books: Tobias with the fish, Susanna (Dan. 13), Daniel and the dragon (Dan. 14), the angel with the three children in the fiery furnace (Dan. 3:49), Habakkuk and Daniel in the lion’s den (Dan. 14:35).

Suffice to say, in conclusion, that since they follow the synagogue in their rejection of the deuterocanonical books, the Protestants should in all logic follow it in its rejection of the New Testament and of Christ Himself.

Apocryphal Books

The term “apocryphal” is derived from the Greek “apokryphos” and denotes something hidden or secret. The sacred books of the ancient pagans, which described the mysteries of religion, were called Apocrypha, because they were kept hidden in the temples, and shown only to the initiated. Again, magicians and wonder-workers forged books reputed to contain hidden heavenly secrets, and designated by the title apocrypha.

Later on, however, the term came to denote a well-defined class of work with Scriptural or quasi-Scriptural pretensions, but lacking genuineness and canonicity, and composed during the last two centuries before Christ or during the early centuries of the Christian era. These books claimed divine authority, and were occasionally accepted by some as inspired, but were excluded from the Bible of the universal Church. There number is exceedingly great. Most of them are either anonymous or pseudonymous. Some are written for edification; others for the sake of propagating false and heretical doctrines; others, finally, to satisfy a foolish curiosity concerning prominent Biblical persons. These apocryphal books are not entirely without value. To the student of the Scriptures they at time furnish interesting information concerning the customs, habits of life, religious views, and opinions of their time. They show, in particular, the higher and nobler character of the inspired books of the Bible.

The apocryphal books are divided into two classes on the basis of their subject matter and reputed authors:

1. The Old Testament apocrypha were written chiefly by Jews, though some contain interpolations by Christians. These books propose fictitious narratives about Biblical persons, or add pious exhortations and precepts to the Mosaic Law, or in the style of prophecy an the name of some patriarch or prophet foretell the near advent of the Messianic reign. The most famous apocrypha of the Old Testament are the third and fourth books of Esdras and the prayer of Manasses, books often given as an appendix in the Latin Vulgate. Other apocryphal books of the Old Testament are: Book of Henoch, Assumption of Moses, Apocalypse of Abraham, Psalms of Solomon, Sibylline Oracles, Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, Ascension of Isaias.

2. The New Testament apocrypha are usually imitation of the genuine sacred books of the Bible. They treat at length matters either briefly mentioned in the Biblical books or omitted entirely. Their favorite themes are the infancy of our Lord or His life on earth after His resurrection. They contain many silly and foolish legends and are lacking in the simplicity and sublimity of the Biblical books. What they add to the four Gospels is made up on the whole either of crude amplifications or of legends. The portrait of our Lord in particular is a caricature of the true image which we find in the canonical Gospels. The Divine Child is frequently represented as haughty, capricious, and performing miracles for purely selfish reasons. Much about Him is artificial and theatrical. Some fifty Gospels, twenty-two Acts, and many Epistles and Apocalypses of diverse Apostles are known to have existed, though many have perished. Famous among these writings is the Letter of King Abgar to our Lord. Other New Testament apocrypha are: Gospels according to the Hebrew and according to the Egyptians; Gospels of Peter and of Thomas; the Proto-Evangelium of James; Acts of Peter and Paul; Apocalypses of Peter, of Paul, of Bartholomew; Epistle of Paul and Seneca.

(1) Esther 10:14 to 16:14).
(2) Daniel 3:24-90; 13, 14).

The Evangelization Station

P.O. Box 267

Angels Camp, California 95222, USA

Telephone: 209-728-5598

E-mail: evangelization@earthlink.net www.evangelizationstation.com

Pamphlet 641

[GonzoII]

THE PENTATEUCH BOOKS

Genesis Exodus Leviticus Numbers Deuteronomy

THE HISTORICAL BOOKS

Joshua Judges Ruth 1 Samuel 2 Samuel 1 Kings 2 Kings 1 Chronicles 2 Chronicles Ezra Nehemiah Tobit Judith Esther 1 Maccabees 2 Maccabees

BOOKS OF WISDOM AND POETRY

Job Psalms Proverbs Ecclesiastes Song of Solomon Wisdom of Solomon Sirach (Ecclesiasticus)

THE PROPHETICAL BOOKS

Isaiah Jeremiah Lamentations Baruch Ezekiel Daniel Hosea Joel Amos Obadiah Jonah Micah Nahum Habakkuk Zephaniah Haggai Zachariah Malachi

THE NEW TESTAMENT

(Rheims, A.D. 1582.)

GOSPEL BOOKS

St. Matthew* St. Mark * St. Luke * St. John *

HISTORICAL BOOK

The Acts of the Apostles *

PAULINE AND OTHER LETTERS

Romans 1 Corinthians * 2 Corinthians * Galatians Ephesians Philippians Colossians 1 Thessalonians 2 Thessalonians 1 Timothy 2 Timothy Titus Philemon Hebrews

CATHOLIC LETTERS

James 1 Peter 2 Peter 1 John 2 John 3 John Jude

APOCALYPSE BOOK

The Apocalypse of St. John: (Also known as the Book of Revelation.)*

[GonzoII]

"Finally, Christian art of the first four centuries, especially that found in the catacombs and cemeteries, furnish among others the following illustrations from the deuterocanonical books: Tobias with the fish, Susanna (Dan. 13), Daniel and the dragon (Dan. 14), the angel with the three children in the fiery furnace (Dan. 3:49), Habakkuk and Daniel in the lion’s den (Dan. 14:35)."

You learn something every day.

[John Leland 1789]

All those are merely human division of the Bible.

Christ Himself gave the proper division of the Old Testament in Luke 24:44.

[GonzoII]

Sorry, I missed a paragraph. In bold:

The Protestant Old Testament omits seven entire books and parts of two other books. To explain how this came about, it is necessary that we go back to the ancient Jewish Scriptures. The Hebrew Bible contained only the Old Testament and from its Old Testament it excluded seven entire books—namely, Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Baruch, I and II Maccabees—and parts of Esther(1) and Daniel(2). These books, which are missing in the Jewish Bible, came into the Catholic Church with the Septuagint, a pre-Christian Greek translation of the Old Testament. In the Septuagint they are intermingled and given equal rank with other books as in the Catholic Bible. Since the Hebrew collection of the sacred books was older than the Septuagint, the books of the Hebrew Bible are known as the “protocanonical” (of the first canon, collection, catalog). The additional books and sections found in the Septuagint and in Catholic Bibles are called “deuterocanonical” (of the second canon or collection).

Jewish hostility to the deutero-canonical books is probably attributable to the conservative spirit of the times. During the last centuries which preceded the coming of Christ, the Jews of Palestine were becoming extremely reactionary under the stress of unfavorable political conditions. Since the deuterocanonical books were of comparatively recent origin and since some of them were written in Greek—the language of paganism—they naturally fell under the displeasure of the Jews. The fact, too, that the early Christians used the Septuagint in their controversies with the Jews only served to confirm the latter in their opposition to this version of the Old Testament.

The Protestants of the sixteenth century objected to the deuterocanonical books because of their dogmatic content. Thus the second book of Maccabees (12:39-46), for instance contains the doctrine of purgatory, of prayers and sacrifices for the dead. The book of Tobias teaches the efficacy of good works, and the book of Sirach (15:11-20) clearly teaches that man has free will. The Protestants could not consistently reject some without excluding all the deuterocanonical books. Hence, in drawing up their list of Old Testament books they went back to the list of the Palestinian Jews. They removed the deuterocanonical books from their traditional place among the protocanonical books and placed them at the end in a special appendix. In addition, they designated them as “apocryphal” (spurious, uninspired), a tem which helped to lower them in the estimation of Protestant readers. The Lutheran and Anglican Bibles still carry them in the appendix or give them a least a secondary rank. But the nonconformistic churches reject them entirely. In 1827 the British and Foreign Bible Society decided not to handle or print Bibles that contained the deuterocanonical books and not to subsidize companies that published them. In consequence, the deuterocanonical books have practically disappeared from Protestant Bibles. The Protestant opposition to these books has in turn influenced the attitude of the Greek and Russian Churches.

The attitude of the Catholic Church toward the deuterocanonical books is determined by a constant and well-established tradition. How well attested this translation is, and how well founded it the position of the Catholic Church, is made readily apparent by the following important facts: In the first place, the Apostles and New Testament writers quoted principally from the Septuagint. On fact, of the three hundred and fifty Old Testament quotations found in the New Testament, about three hundred are taken from the Septuagint..Some of the New Testament writers made use of the deuterocanonicals books themselves, particularly the Book of Wisdom, which seems to have been St. Paul’s favorite volume. The Epistle of James, for example, shows familiarity with the book of Sirach. If the Apostles and New Testament writers used some of the deuterocanonical books, did they not thereby endorse the entire and longer Septuagint collection?

Secondly, the deuterocanonical books were accepted in the Church from the beginning. The Epistle of Pope Clement, written before the end of the first century, makes use of Sirach and Wisdom, gives an analysis of the Book of Judith, and quotes from the deuterocanonical parts of Esther. The same is true of other early Christian writers. The oldest extant Christian Bibles contain the deuterocanonical books intermingled with the protocanonical. The oldest Christian list of Biblical books contain the deuterocanonical books; in 382 Pope Damasus in a Roman Council promulgated a formal list of Old and New Testament books and the list contains the same books as we have in our Catholic Bibles. Finally, Christian art of the first four centuries, especially that found in the catacombs and cemeteries, furnish among others the following illustrations from the deuterocanonical books: Tobias with the fish, Susanna (Dan. 13), Daniel and the dragon (Dan. 14), the angel with the three children in the fiery furnace (Dan. 3:49), Habakkuk and Daniel in the lion’s den (Dan. 14:35)......

[Kimberly GG]

Interesting. As a child, I was raised in several different Protestant churches. Their take on it was that the Catholic Church had, against scriptural direction, ADDED books to the Bible. In fact, we were also taught that the Catholic ‘version’ contained language, in summary, that ONLY Catholics will be saved/go to heaven.

Thank goodness the God of my understanding is bigger than any ‘religion’. What he must think of us and our petty differences?!

[GonzoII]

"All those are merely human division of the Bible.

Christ Himself gave the proper division of the Old Testament in Luke 24:44. "

What if they are? Christ as well as other NT writers used the Septuagint that's my interest here. Why don't you do the same?:

SEPTUAGINT QUOTES
IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

Back · Home · Next
 

 

Of the approximately 300 Old Testament quotes in the New Testament, approximately 2/3 of them came from the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament) which included the deuterocanonical books that the Protestants later removed. This is additional evidence that Jesus and the apostles viewed the deuterocanonical books as part of canon of the Old Testament. Here are some examples:

Matt. 1:23 / Isaiah 7:14 - behold, a "virgin" shall conceive. Hebrew - behold, a "young woman" shall conceive.

Matt. 3:3; Mark 1:3; John 1:23 / Isaiah 40:3 - make "His paths straight." Hebrew - make "level in the desert a highway."

Matt. 9:13; 12:7 / Hosea 6:6 - I desire "mercy" and not sacrifice. Hebrew - I desire "goodness" and not sacrifice.

Matt. 12:21 / Isaiah 42:4 - in His name will the Gentiles hope (or trust). Hebrew - the isles shall wait for his law.

Matt. 13:15 / Isaiah 6:10 - heart grown dull; eyes have closed; to heal. Hebrew - heart is fat; ears are heavy; eyes are shut; be healed.

Matt. 15:9; Mark 7:7 / Isaiah 29:13 - teaching as doctrines the precepts of men. Hebrew - a commandment of men (not doctrines).

Matt. 21:16 / Psalm 8:2 - out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou has "perfect praise." Hebrew - thou has "established strength."

Mark 7:6-8 – Jesus quotes Isaiah 29:13 from the Septuagint – “This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.”

Luke 3:5-6 / Isaiah 40:4-5 - crooked be made straight, rough ways smooth, shall see salvation. Hebrew - omits these phrases.

Luke 4:18 / Isaiah 61:1 - and recovering of sight to the blind. Hebrew - the opening of prison to them that are bound.

Luke 4:18 / Isaiah 58:6 - to set at liberty those that are oppressed (or bruised). Hebrew - to let the oppressed go free.

John 6:31 / Psalm 78:24 - He gave them "bread" out of heaven to eat. Hebrew - gave them "food" or "grain" from heaven.

John 12:38 / Isaiah 53:1 - who has believed our "report?" Hebrew - who has believed our "message?"

John 12:40 / Isaiah 6:10 - lest they should see with eyes...turn for me to heal them. Hebrew - shut their eyes...and be healed.

Acts 2:19 / Joel 2:30 - blood and fire and "vapor" of smoke. Hebrew - blood and fire and "pillars" or "columns" of smoke.

Acts 2:25-26 / Psalm 16:8 - I saw...tongue rejoiced...dwell in hope.. Hebrew - I have set...glory rejoiced...dwell in safety.

Acts 4:26 / Psalm 2:1 - the rulers "were gathered together." Hebrew - rulers "take counsel together."

Acts 7:14 / Gen. 46:27; Deut. 10:22 - Stephen says "seventy-five" souls went down to Egypt. Hebrew - "seventy" people went.

Acts 7:27-28 / Exodus 2:14 - uses "ruler" and judge; killed the Egyptian "yesterday." Hebrew - uses "prince" and there is no reference to "yesterday."

Acts 7:43 / Amos 5:26-27 - the tent of "Moloch" and star of god of Rephan. Hebrew - "your king," shrine, and star of your god.

Acts 8:33 / Isaiah 53:7-8 - in his humiliation justice was denied him. Hebrew - by oppression...he was taken away.

Acts 13:41 / Habakkuk 1:5 - you "scoffers" and wonder and "perish." Hebrew - you "among the nations," and "be astounded."

Acts 15:17 / Amos 9:12 - the rest (or remnant) of "men." Hebrew - the remnant of "Edom."

Rom. 2:24 / Isaiah 52:5 - the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles. Hebrew - blasphemed (there is no mention of the Gentiles).

Rom. 3:4 / Psalm 51:4 - thou mayest "prevail" (or overcome) when thou art judged. Hebrew - thou might "be clear" when thou judges.

Rom. 3:12 / Psalm 14:1,3 - they "have gone wrong." Hebrew - they are "corrupt" or "filthy."

Rom. 3:13 / Psalm 5:9 - they use their tongues to deceive. Hebrew - they flatter with their tongues. There is no "deceit" language.

Rom. 3:13 / Psalm 140:3 - the venom of "asps" is under their lips. Hebrew - "Adder's" poison is under their lips.

Rom. 3:14 / Psalm 10:7 - whose mouth is full of curses and "bitterness." Hebrew - cursing and "deceit and oppression."

Rom. 9:17 / Exodus 9:16 - my power "in you"; my name may be "proclaimed." Hebrew - show "thee"; may name might be "declared."

Rom. 9:25 / Hosea 2:23 - I will call my people; I will call my beloved. Hebrew - I will have mercy (love versus mercy).

Rom. 9:27 / Isaiah 10:22 - only a remnant of them "will be saved." Hebrew - only a remnant of them "will return."

Rom. 9:29 / Isaiah 1:9 - had not left us "children." Hebrew - Jehova had left us a "very small remnant."

Rom. 9:33; 10:11; 1 Peter 2:6 / Isaiah 28:16 - he who believes will not be "put to shame." Hebrew - shall not be "in haste."

Rom. 10:18 / Psalm 19:4 - their "voice" has gone out. Hebrew - their "line" is gone out.

Rom. 10:20 / Isaiah 65:1 - I have "shown myself" to those who did not ask for me. Hebrew - I am "inquired of" by them.

Rom. 10:21 / Isaiah 65:2 - a "disobedient and contrary" people. Hebrew - a "rebellious" people.

Rom. 11:9-10 / Psalm 69:22-23 - "pitfall" and "retribution" and "bend their backs." Hebrew - "trap" and "make their loins shake."

Rom. 11:26 / Isaiah 59:20 - will banish "ungodliness." Hebrew - turn from "transgression."

Rom. 11:27 / Isaiah 27:9 - when I take away their sins. Hebrew - this is all the fruit of taking away his sin.

Rom. 11:34; 1 Cor. 2:16 / Isaiah 40:13 -the "mind" of the Lord; His "counselor." Hebrew - "spirit" of the Lord; "taught" Him.

Rom. 12:20 / Prov. 25:21 - feed him and give him to drink. Hebrew - give him "bread" to eat and "water" to drink.

Rom. 15:12 / Isaiah 11:10 - the root of Jesse..."to rule the Gentiles." Hebrew - stands for an ensign. There is nothing about the Gentiles.

Rom. 15:21 / Isaiah 52:15 - been told "of him"; heard "of him." Hebrew - does not mention "him" (the object of the prophecy).

1 Cor. 1:19 / Isaiah 29:14 - "I will destroy" the wisdom of the wise. Hebrew - wisdom of their wise men "shall perish."

1 Cor. 5:13 / Deut. 17:7 - remove the "wicked person." Hebrew - purge the "evil." This is more generic evil in the MT.

1 Cor. 15:55 / Hosea 13:14 - O death, where is thy "sting?" Hebrew - O death, where are your "plagues?"

2 Cor. 4:13 / Psalm 116:10 - I believed and so I spoke (past tense). Hebrew - I believe, for I will speak (future tense).

2 Cor. 6:2 / Isaiah 49:8 - I have "listened" to you. Hebrew - I have "answered" you.

Gal. 3:10 / Deut. 27:26 - cursed be every one who does not "abide" by all things. Hebrew - does not "confirm" the words.

Gal. 3:13 / Deut. 21:23 - cursed is everyone who hangs on a "tree." Hebrew - a hanged man is accursed. The word "tree" does not follow.

Gal. 4:27 / Isaiah 54:1 - "rejoice" and "break forth and shout." Hebrew - "sing" and "break forth into singing."

2 Tim. 2:19 / Num. 16:5 - The Lord "knows" those who are His. Hebrew - God will "show" who are His.

Heb. 1:6 / Deut. 32:43 - let all the angels of God worship Him. Hebrew - the Masoretic text omits this phrase from Deut. 32:43.

Heb. 1:12 / Psalm 102:25 - like a "mantle" ... "roll them"... "will be changed." Hebrew - "raiment"... "change"..."pass away."

Heb. 2:7 / Psalm 8:5 - thou has made Him a little "lower than angels." Hebrew - made Him but a little "lower than God."

Heb. 2:12 / Psalm 22:22 - I will " sing" thy praise. Hebrew - I will praise thee. The LXX and most NTs (but not the RSV) have "sing."

Heb. 2:13 / Isaiah 8:17 - I will "put my trust in Him." Hebrew - I will "look for Him."

Heb. 3:15 / Psalm 95:8 - do not harden your hearts as "in the rebellion." Hebrew - harden not your hearts "as at Meribah."

Heb. 3:15; 4:7 / Psalm 95:7 - when you hear His voice do not harden not your hearts. Hebrew - oh that you would hear His voice!

Heb. 8:9-10 / Jer. 31:32-33 - (nothing about husband); laws into their mind. Hebrew - I was a husband; law in their inward parts.

Heb. 9:28 / Isaiah 10:22 - "to save those" who are eagerly awaiting for Him. Hebrew - a remnant of them "shall return."

Heb. 10:5 / Psalm 40:6 - "but a body hast thou prepared for me." Hebrew - "mine ears hast thou opened."

Heb. 10:38 / Hab. 2:3-4 - if he shrinks (or draws) back, my soul shall have no pleasure. Hebrew - his soul is puffed up, not upright.

Heb. 11:5 / Gen. 5:24 - Enoch was not "found." Hebrew - Enoch was "not."

Heb. 11:21 / Gen. 47:31 - Israel, bowing "over the head of his staff." Hebrew - there is nothing about bowing over the head of his staff.

Heb. 12:6 / Prov. 3:12 - He chastises every son whom He receives. Hebrew - even as a father the son in whom he delights.

Heb. 13:6 / Psalm 118:6 - the Lord "is my helper." Hebrew - Jehova "is on my side." The LXX and the NT are identical.

James 4:6 / Prov. 3:34 - God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble. Hebrew - He scoffs at scoffers and gives grace to the lowly.

1 Peter 1:24 / Isaiah 40:6 - all its "glory" like the flower. Hebrew - all the "goodliness" as the flower.

1 Pet. 2:9 / Exodus 19:6 - you are a "royal priesthood." Hebrew - you shall be to me a "kingdom of priests."

1 Pet. 2:9 / Isaiah 43:21 - God's own people...who called you out of darkness. Heb. - which I formed myself. These are different actions.

1 Pet. 2:22 / Isaiah 53:9 - he "committed no sin." Hebrew - he "had done no violence."

1 Pet. 4:18 / Prov. 11:31 - if a righteous man "is scarcely saved." Hebrew - if the righteous "is recompensed."

1 Pet. 5:5 / Prov. 3:34 - God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble. Hebrew - He scoffs at scoffers and gives grace to lowly.

Isaiah 11:2 - this verse describes the Seven Gifts of the Holy Spirit, but the seventh gift, "piety," is only found in the Septuagint.

Top

 

Copyright 2001 - 2007 © by John Salza. All Rights Reserved.
johnsalza@scripturecatholic.com

[GonzoII]

"What he must think of us and our petty differences?!"

I wouldn't consider the removal of parts of God's Word "petty".

[John Leland 1789]

There is actually no real proof of a B.C. Septuagint. The Septuagint was not done until after the completion of the N.T.

This has been a ruse in the manuscript evidence field for a hundred years now.

[cizinec]

Really? Philo said it was BCE. Josephus says it was BCE. The Talmud says it was BCE. Origen (whose major work on the LXX has been tragically lost) says it was BCE.

Christ himself quoted from it. Did you fail to see the post above????? Why Christ would quote from something not yet written seems a bit odd to me and makes your argument seem either silly or disingenuous.

If you don’t accept the LXX, that’s fine. At least reject it for reasons that are remotely reasonable. Even my evangelical brother who rejects the LXX would be moaning at such a ridiculous statement.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“Christ Himself gave the proper division of the Old Testament in Luke 24:44.”

Christ gave the division that was commonly said in His day.

[GonzoII]

"There is actually no real proof of a B.C. Septuagint."

The very quotes of Christ and NT writers themselves from Septuagint verified by the copies that we have today prove its existence in the years prior to Christ's coming.

[John Leland 1789]

"Philo, Josephus, the Talmud, Origen"

All corrupt and questionable sources.

"Christ himself quoted from it."

No, it might have used material from NT sources that make it appear the other way around. Still no proof of a BC Sept.

[vladimir998]

6. Minor Prophets in Greek
8HevXIIgr
Scroll type: Biblical text
Date: 1st century BCE
Language: Greek
Discovered: “Cave of Horror” in Nahal Hever, 1952-1962
Habakkuk 1:11-Zephaniah 3:7

The presence of Greek biblical texts among the Dead Sea Scrolls illustrates that many Jews of this time could speak and read Greek, rather than or in addition to Hebrew. During the last four centuries of the Second Temple Period (536 BCE-70 CE), the Greeks and then the Romans conquered the land of ancient Israel and Judah, and many Jews also dispersed throughout the Middle East under Greek influence.

Although the scroll text appears in Greek, this translation follows the Hebrew original, rather than the widely-used Greek translation from 300-200 BCE called the Septuagint. The so-called “minor prophets” appear as 12 individual books in the Greek Septuagint and in the Christian Old Testament, but as a single volume in the Hebrew Bible. Dead Sea Scroll fragments contain prophetic writings of Jonah, Nahum, Micah, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, and Zechariah.

From the San Diego Natural History Museum website.

[Talf]

the people who assembled the NT canon,

used the LXX Old Testament...

or not, please enlighten me

[aruanan]

No, it might have used material from NT sources that make it appear the other way around. Still no proof of a BC Sept.

Let's put it this way: there are far more ancient sources that support an LXX written between the 3rd and 1st century BC than you have to support your claim that it wasn't (as well as the fact that it was the commonly used OT amongst Jews of the first half of the first century). All you have done is offer conjecture, hand-waving ("it might have used material from NT sources that make it appear the other away around"), and impugning of sources ("all corrupt and questionable sources").

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

The Apocrypha, and why it's not Scripture

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

Let's put it this way: there are far more ancient sources that support an LXX written between the 3rd and 1st century BC than you have to support your claim that it wasn't (as well as the fact that it was the commonly used OT amongst Jews of the first half of the first century). All you have done is offer conjecture, hand-waving ("it might have used material from NT sources that make it appear the other away around"), and impugning of sources ("all corrupt and questionable sources").

*A* Septuagint existed in the BC. Of course, it wasn't the *same* Septuagint as we have now, or at least parts of it were changed, retranslated, etc. This we know for a FACT.

I still don't understand the love people have for the LXX. Even in the more genuine parts, it's such a pitiful translation (really, more like a targum in many places) that it's actual value in the textual debates ought to be nil.

[alnick]

None of the verses you quote are from any of the controversial books.

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

I wouldn't consider the removal of parts of God's Word "petty".

Even if we wish to entertain the fiction that the LXX were a good (or even passable) translation, the fact remains that the apocryphal books were added to it well into the Christian era. They were not part of the Jewish canon, and in fact, most of these books did not even exist when the original (as opposed to the much later redacted) LXX was translated. Did you know, for instance, that Baruch wasn't even written until around 70 AD, or that the Wisdom of Solomon was produced at some point between 75 BC and 40 AD? Even other books like Susanna and Tobit were produced in the century prior to Christ - and were not included in the original production of the LXX between 250-200 BC.

[cizinec]

Philo could be mistaken. Josephus could be mistaken. The Talmud could be mistaken (your claim against the Talmud is the most bizarre, as it was written CE by a number of conservative Jews who would have no benefit from dating the LXX earlier). Origen could be mistaken.

All taken together, they make the same claim at different times and from different positions (Philo, Josepus and the Talmud are Jewish sources from different schools of Judaism and Origen is a Christian source).

If you are saying the Talmud was written by Christians, why would any Christian church write a book for Jews claiming Christ is not Christ? If some fictional group of international conspirators were intelligent enough to fool the world, they would have falsified a book to make the LXX clearly THE text, not some Jewish texts or some texts by a writer who was condemned as a heretic.

The Masoretic Text (which I am assuming you hold as correct) was not written until a full millennium after Christ and its use as a Christian source is extremely bizarre, as its text was definitively changed to point away from Christ.

While the Dead Sea Scrolls are about 35% are from the Masoretic tradition, most are other and the DSS contain books from the LXX that are excluded from the MT, primarily because they were some of the most convincing, pro-Christ texts in the Jewish Canon prior to the adoption of the MT 1000 years after Christ. Yes, the MT is in Hebrew. That doesn’t make it older, nor does it make it correct.