Replies

Christ never once mentioned that anything in the Septuagint shouldn't be there.

Some scripture of ancient origin are found in the Septuagint but are not present in the Hebrew.

These additional books are Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Jesus son of Sirach, Baruch, Letter of Jeremiah (which later became chapter 6 of Baruch in the Vulgate), additions to Daniel (The Prayer of Azarias, the Song of the Three Children, Susanna and Bel and the Dragon), additions to Esther, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, 3 Maccabees, 4 Maccabees, 1 Esdras, Odes, including the Prayer of Manasseh, the Psalms of Solomon, and Psalm 151.

The canonical acceptance of these books varies among different Christian traditions, and there are canonical books not derived from the Septuagint. For more information regarding these books, see the articles Biblical apocrypha, Biblical canon, Books of the Bible, and Deuterocanonical books.

Alas, given that they've found copies of several of those books in Hebrew that predate the Greek versions, that particular reasoning isn't worth much.

Even if any new discoveries aren't considered, both books of Maccabees are known to have originally been written in Hebrew and if the criteria is that books be originally written in Hebrew you better toss out the book of Danial along with the rest. I was originally written in Aramaic.

If non-Catholics are honest about applying their professed "Hebrew origin" rationale they should also throw out Danial. Accepting Luther's canon for the Old Testament doesn't make sense unless you also accept his views on the New Testament as well. So, Danial is gone due to not being originally written in Hebrew and Revelation would go for whatever reason Luther didn't like it. What the "Late Great Surrender" folks would preach about without both the book of Danial and the book of Revelation is something really interesting to think about.

So, throw out Danial, add in both books of Maccabees, and you're closer to actually basing things on that oft repeated canard, but there's still the matter of a couple of other books that they now know originated in Hebrew. So at the very least, people have been misled into accepting Danial since Luther and misled into not accepting Maccabees that is valid Scripture. Or, origin in Hebrew wasn't the real reason Luther shed those books from the Bible. Unless, of course, someone wants to argue that Luther was just stupid in which case, why listen to him about anything?

The argument is that of an argument from silence, that if Jesus did not say something was wrong then it is sanctioned (which is the same red letter hermeneutic homosexuals use in arguing the since Jesus did not mention homosexuality, and condemn loving monogamous ones, then this is sanctioned).

However, the fallacious nature of this has been made evident (see replies), as to be consistent, RCs must not only accept books found in the LXX which are not in the RC canon, but applied consistently in principle, even more books such as Enoch* (Jude. 1:14,15; Enoch 1:9)

See update comments here. http://peacebyjesus.tripod.com/ancients_on_scripture.html#LXX

*Some in the LDS believed that the original Book of Enoch was an inspired book, and it is similar to the Book of Moses. Yet Enoch also tells of over 400 foot height angelic offspring, and of angels (stars) procreating with oxen to produce elephants, camels and donkeys. (7:12-15; 86:1-5.) But Smith himself was a lover of fantasy, and produced his own.

Do you think that offering some intro search terms will assist in some here dropping assorted nonsensical claims?

Melito of Sardis. Origin. Jerome whom they have sainted. Flavius Josephus. The Jews of Jerusalem vs. Jews of Egypt. Which of those last two would most likely have accurate & most valid opinion concerning what was holy writ (at the time of Christ) and what was not? A slight question that is not!

The Jews in Egypt (approx 3rd century BC) had lost their ability to understand Hebrew which gave rise to the Greek translation, as to need & desire for it. Considering how there are differing Septuagints (differing in what was included) is a another strong hint. Claiming to follow it now raises the question -- which one? there is evidence of itself having evolved prior to Jerome. Jerome translated the books in dispute under protest, adding certain warnings concerning them... his translation did not settle or define the canon as some here claim. To claim that conflates the request for translation itself into being the act of definition --- but throws out the translator's warnings at the same time. This too ignores later council discussions (as to canon) in the wider world of Catholicism, and later close details of proceedings of Trent regarding the issue. There was hesitancy even then.. the committee vote was less than overwhelming.

Circling the target (target=rhetorical hobby horses)

Viva la REFORM-olution!

Following Maccabees now, simply has to be a mistake. They did not throw off their oppressors in any lasting fashion, but brought assured destruction down upon their heirs instead. History proves that well enough. Can not it be seen that they miss-used the word of God (even adding to it, their own self promotional legend) figuratively declaring they could run out in front of it and force the issue? God did not fight for them then, fully as they desired for Him to do. Years later, Jerusalem destroyed, the temple there, utterly.

One simply must follow that pillar of fire, not get ahead, being impatient, helping God out.

Ishmael. Where did he come from but an early effort to "help God fulfill" His own promise?