The Deuterocanonicals and the Hebrews…


#21

For a detailed study of the use of the Septuagint in the New Testament see the study of R. Grant Jones at geocities.com/Heartland/Pines/7224/Rick/Septuagint/spindex.htm According to Jones, fully two-thirds of the references in the New Testament are to the Greek (not the Hebrew) version of the Old Testament.


#22

[quote=aridite]For a detailed study of the use of the Septuagint in the New Testament see the study of R. Grant Jones at geocities.com/Heartland/Pines/7224/Rick/Septuagint/spindex.htm
[/quote]

According to Jones, fully two-thirds of the references in the New Testament are to the Greek (not the Hebrew) version of the Old Testament.Actually, according to Gleason Archer and G.C. Chirichigno (Protestant authors both) in their book “Old Testament Quotes in the New Testament: A Complete Survey.” (Moody Press, 1983) out of some 373 OT quotes in the NT 340 are from the Septuagint, which makes it some 90%.
Beginning Apologetics # 7 from San Juan Catholic Seminars.


#23

[quote=aridite]For a detailed study of the use of the Septuagint in the New Testament see the study of R. Grant Jones at geocities.com/Heartland/Pines/7224/Rick/Septuagint/spindex.htm According to Jones, fully two-thirds of the references in the New Testament are to the Greek (not the Hebrew) version of the Old Testament.
[/quote]

See post # 10


#24

Ditto, Church Militant.

I recently asked a Baptist friend why so many of the references in the NT of her Bible were connected to the Catholic Bible, i.e. books not in her Bible but in mine. She was flummoxed - no one had ever asked her that question. She is a fine, Christian woman and is now interested in learning more about Catholicism via the Catholic Bible.


#25

Rand Al’Thor:

Here’s an excellent defense of the deuterocanonicals by Jimmy Akin: cin.org/users/james/files/deuteros.htm

I read it. Thanks! :slight_smile: It explained things very well.

DianJo:

Here’s another: icnet/~erasums/RAZ345.HTM#33

Someone else on another bible thread gave these links:
catholic-convert.com/Por…r%20Website.doc or
catholic-convert.com/Pot…anonCorrect.doc

I’m afraid none of these links worked. Are you sure they’re right?

RobNY:

…In Refuting an Attack on the Deuterocanonicals he deals more broadly with the issue…

It looks like there’s something wrong with the hyperlinking with this one. Your first link worked, though, although I haven’t yet finished reading it.

aridite:

For a detailed study of the use of the Septuagint in the New Testament see the study of R. Grant Jones at geocities.com/Heartland/…int/spindex.htm

Thanks! :slight_smile:

God Bless!


#26

I was wondering whether or not we could take it for absolute truth that the Septuagint contains the deuterocanonical books, and so I thought it might be a good idea to check out a non-religious website. I chose Wikipedia, and the article can be found here. This part of the article I found interesting:

The additional books in most editions of the Septuagint are 1 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Sirach, Baruch, Letter of Jeremiah (considered by Catholics as part of Baruch), additions to Daniel (Prayer of Azariah, Song of the Three Children, Susanna and Bel and the Dragon), additions to Esther, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, 3 Maccabees, 4 Maccabees, Psalm 151, and Odes (including the Prayer of Manasseh).

And so according to Wikipedia, the Septuagint contains some books that we Catholics do not include in our canon. How do we reconcile this fact with the argument Catholics often use that as the quotations from the New Testament are most often from the Septuagint, therefore we should accept the deuterocanonicals as they are in the Septuagint? In other words, why do we reject these other books as not canonical?


#27

[quote=Atreyu]How do we reconcile this fact with the argument Catholics often use that as the quotations from the New Testament are most often from the Septuagint, therefore we should accept the deuterocanonicals as they are in the Septuagint? In other words, why do we reject these other books as not canonical?
[/quote]

I know some books in the LXX go by different names, so I don’t know if your list does have non-canonical books in it. I’m sure someone else can speak to these differences.

I just wanted to point out that the fact that the NT refers to the LXX is not what makes it (and the deuteros) inspired. The fact that the NT refers to the LXX just shows that the NT writers considered it authoritative. The judgment that assures us that it is really inspired is the work of the magisterium at councils (Hippo, Carthage, and ultimately Trent). There are individual verses or chapters in the NT that are disputed by scholars/other denominations. But what is included there, as in the OT, as inspired is what the magesterium has determined to be inspired. NT references to LXX give added weight to this determination by the magesterium, but are not (or not exclusively) the underlying rationale for the magisterium’s determination of the canon. The rationale also makes use of the constant tradition of all the churches, from the earliest days, and I believe as well, the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Does anyone know whether the councils that defined the canon gave reasons for defining it the way they did?


#28

Gee, I’m so sorry - I’ll check them again and re-post if I can.


#29

The only thing I know to do is post the exact address that’s in my address bar. I’m sure there’s an easier way to do it - I’m just sort of computer illiterate when it comes to this kind of stuff!

So, try this:
catholic-convert.com/Portals/57ad7180-c5e7-49f5-b282-c647cdb7ee7/Documents/Jamnia%20for%20Wesite.doc
If this doesn’t work, I don’t know what to do next. I tried.
Let me know if it works.


#30

Ok - try this. The weblink I gave you came from another thread.

Go to the thread named, “Is the bible all we need 1”, it’s in Apologetics (where we are) but it’s on the second page of titles. Go to post # 9 by Lazerlike42 - that link works! There are 2 links posted and they are both excellent for what you are looking for.


#31

[quote=Atreyu]And so according to Wikipedia, the Septuagint contains some books that we Catholics do not include in our canon. How do we reconcile this fact with the argument Catholics often use that as the quotations from the New Testament are most often from the Septuagint, therefore we should accept the deuterocanonicals as they are in the Septuagint? In other words, why do we reject these other books as not canonical?
[/quote]

The “other” books - which are all minor - accepted by the Orthodox but not included by the Catholics, are 3rd and 4th Maccabees and the 151st Psalm (and maybe the Odes - I’m not 100% sure). Their inclusion by the one and not the other had to do with which copies of the OT manuscripts were in the hands of the prelates in Constantinople and Rome.

From what I understand, Jerome didn’t have them at his disposal when he translated the Vulgate, so they were neglected and ultimately ignored. The Orthodox have always kept their scriptures in Greek, so they didn’t have an intermediate translation get in the way and “forget” some minor books. By the time of the Council of Trent in the 1500s, when the OT books were officially affirmed, the Catholics had been using the Vulgate for so long that the omitted books were simply a non-issue.


#32

[quote=The Iambic Pen]Did the Early Church Fathers accept the Deuterocanonicals as being inspired? (I did notice today that Pope Clement mentioned Judith in his epistle to the Corinthians)
Does anyone know Luther’s reasons for removing them?
Does anyone know why the Jews compiling the Palestinian Canon removed the Deuterocanonicals?
Were the Greek-speaking Jews the only ones who accepted the Deuterocanonicals to begin with?

Anyway, those are a few questions I have. Don’t worry, I’m not being lazy and just expecting others to do the research for me. I am definitely continuing my study. I just figure some of you might know some information about this subject. As always, I thank you for your patience and your answers. God bless!
[/quote]

The Jews don’t even have an official canon today. There is a group of Jews that includes the Deuterocanonicals. I can’t recall where they are though.

There are many church fathers who mention the Septuagint as the inspired scriptures, including Justin martyr and Irenaeus.


#33

There are catacombs in Rome, where the earliest Christians worshipped in secret. They often put pictures on the walls, such as depictions of events in salvation history (somewhat like our stained glass windows today). One of the pictures there is a depiction of the story of Susanna, found only in the Catholic version of the book of Daniel.


#34

Hello Iambic Pen - I haven’t found this in a previoius post so unless I missed it, I’d suggest reading the book ‘Where We Got The Bible’ by Henry G. Graham. It gives a really good history of the bible, including the deuterocanonicals. Granted, it’s written by a convert to Catholicism so it will probably not mesh with what you have read on on the Protestant boards, but it is a very good historical and convincing detailed account of Scripture that I think would be hard for anyone to logically refute if they really studied their history.


#35

As stated before, some did, some did not. The entire church did not have a universal canon before then. Pope St. Clement’s two letters to the Corinthians were read as scripture in Corinth, in some places the Shepheard of Hermas and the Apocalypse of Peter were read as scripture. It is becuse of this disunity that the Council of Rome declared the canon in 382.

[quote=The Iambic Pen]Does anyone know Luther’s reasons for removing them?
[/quote]

His reason for removing them was not because the Palestinian Jews rejected them, but because he did not agree with them. They supported Catholic Theology such as: purgatory, indulgences, and faith with good works for justification. Although the Magisterium declared the canon 100s of years before, Luther found “reasons” why they are not part of the canon and that the magisterium was wrong:

“This book is called, and is supposed to be, the second book of Maccabees, as the title indicates. Yet this cannot be true, because it reports several incidents that happened before those reported in the first book, and it does not proceed any further than Judas Maccabaeus, that is, chapter 7 of the first book. It would be better to call this the first instead of the second book, unless one were to call it simply a second book and not the second book of Maccabees—another or different, certainly, but not second.  But we include it anyway, for the sake of the good story of the seven Maccabean martyrs and their mother, and other things as well.It appears, however, that the book has no single author, but was pieced together out of many books.  It also presents a knotty problem in chapter 14:41–46] where Razis commits suicide, something which also troubles St. Augustine and the ancient fathers. Such an example is good for nothing and should not be praised, even though it may be tolerated and perhaps explained. So also in chapter 1 this book describes the death of Antiochus quite differently than does First Maccabees [6:1–16].To sum up: just as it is proper for the first book to be included among the sacred Scriptures, so it is proper that this second book should be thrown out, even though it contains some good things. However the whole thing is left and referred to the pious reader to judge and to decide.” (LW 35:352-353)

In the Old Testament, Saul is recored dying in different ways:

“David went and took the bones of Saul and the bones of his son Jonathan from the men of Ja’besh-gil’ead, who had stolen them from the public square of Beth-shan, where the Philistines had hanged them, on the day the Philistines killed Saul on Gilbo’a.” ( 2 Samuel 21:12)

“So Saul died for his unfaithfulness; he was unfaithful to the LORD in that he did not keep the command of the LORD, and also consulted a medium, seeking guidance, and did not seek guidance from the LORD. Therefore the LORD slew him, and turned the kingdom over to David the son of Jesse.” ( 1 Chronicles 10:13-14)

‘Then David said to the young man who told him, “How do you know that Saul and his son Jonathan are dead?” And the young man who told him said, "By chance I happened to be on Mount Gilbo’a; and there was Saul leaning upon his spear; and lo, the chariots and the horsemen were close upon him. And when he looked behind him, he saw me, and called to me. And I answered, Here I am.' And he said to me,Who are you?’ I answered him, I am an Amal'ekite.' And he said to me,Stand beside me and slay me; for anguish has seized me, and yet my life still lingers.’ So I stood beside him, and slew him, because I was sure that he could not live after he had fallen; and I took the crown which was on his head and the armlet which was on his arm, and I have brought them here to my lord."’ ( 2 Samuel 1:5-10)

In one instance, Saul is recorded comitting suicide:

“Then Saul said to his armor-bearer, “Draw your sword, and thrust me through with it, lest these uncircumcised come and thrust me through, and make sport of me.” But his armor-bearer would not; for he feared greatly. Therefore Saul took his own sword, and fell upon it.” (1 Samuel 31:4)


#36

[quote=The Iambic Pen]Does anyone know why the Jews compiling the Palestinian Canon removed the Deuterocanonicals?
[/quote]

As stated before, they were not removed, the Palestinian Jews; when they determined their canon, did not include them. When and how the Palestinian Jews determined their canon is still unknown.

(Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Bible 1963 ) “Even in the second century of the Christian era the Jewish rabbis were not fully agreed on the Canonicity of certan books (e.g. Cant, Eccl; cfr. Also 4, Esd 14,44ff).”

(The Encyclopedia of Judaism, vol 15 page 117)" says that the limit of the third part (Writings) was not finalized until mid of second century. In addition, the Hebrew Canon was also not accepted by Ethiopian Jews who accept Septuagint to this day "

(Dictionary of Biblical Literacy 1986. p.321)“Precisely when Jewish leadership officially adopted the traditional 39 books of the so-called “Hebrew Canon” is not known; nor is there agreement as to exactly what criteria were used in determining the Canon.”

[quote=The Iambic Pen]Were the Greek-speaking Jews the only ones who accepted the Deuterocanonicals to begin with?
[/quote]

No, the Deuterocanonicals were found with the dead sea scrolls in Palestine. And they were found written in Aramaic, not Greek. So yes, these books were in Aramaic and were in Israel at the time of Christ. Anti-Catholics try to degrade this by saying a Jewish sect read them along with other apocryphal works, but the point is that they were in Israel at the time of Christ and groups within Israel disputed the canon.

Also, the Ethiopian Jews still use the LXX canon today (which included the deuterocanonicals.) They also accept three additional books outside of the LXX.


#37

Peace be with you!

I’m not sure how many of you remember Tertium Quid, who used to post on the Catholic Answers forums (I haven’t seen him for a while), but he has a website that deals with Martin Luther. He is a Protestant apologist and make some pretty good points (some of which I disagree with, of course), like the fact that Luther didn’t technically “remove” the books; he appendicized them (without page, verse numbers) and removed them from the canon, but not the Bible itself. But at the least he’s kind of like James White, whose writings are useful because they bring up things you need to know or learn about to refute.
This is Tertium Quid’s (James Swan) website: ntrmin.org/Luther%20and%20the%20canon%202.htm
Just be kind of forewarned…he does view Luther as a sort of “hero”, so this is very “pro-Luther”.

In Christ,
Rand


#38

Just a quick insertion, on those 3 days between Tobiah an Sarahs wedding and the “consummation” :

[quote=BibleReader] I don’t see the three days business in the story. In Tobit 7 to 8,
[/quote]

See Tobit 6, 18-22 & 8,4

[quote=Douay rheim]TB 6,17 For they who in such manner receive matrimony, as to shut out God from themselves, and from their mind, and to give themselves to their lust, as the horse and mule, which have not understanding, over them the devil hath power. 18 But thou when thou shalt take her, go into the chamber, and for three days keep thyself continent from her, and give thyself to nothing else but to prayers with her. 19 And on that night lay the liver of the fish on the fire, and the devil shall be driven away. 20 But the second night thou shalt be admitted into the society of the holy Patriarchs.

21 And the third night thou shalt obtain a blessing that sound children may be born of you. 22 And when the third night is past, thou shalt take the virgin with the fear of the Lord, moved rather for love of children than for lust, that in the seed of Abraham thou mayst obtain a blessing in children.
[/quote]

[quote=Douay rheim]8,4 Then Tobias exhorted the virgin, and said to her: Sara, arise, and let us pray to God today, and tomorrow, and the next day: because for these three nights we are joined to God: and when the third night is over, we will be in our own wedlock. 5 For we are the children of saints, and we must not be joined together like heathens that know not God.

6 So they both arose, and prayed earnestly both together that health might be given them, 7 And Tobias said: Lord God of our father, may the heavens and the earth, and the sea, and the fountains, and the rivers, and all thy creatures that are in them, bless thee. 8 Thou madest Adam of the slime of the earth, and gavest him Eve for a helper. 9 And now, Lord, thou knowest, that not for fleshly lust do I take my sister to wife, but only for the love of posterity, in which thy name may be blessed for ever and ever.
[/quote]


#39

OK. I didn’t read all the posts here but wanted to add this tidbit. I went to a bible study at U of I on the book of Wisdom, with Msgr. Swetland.

He said that the book of Wisdom was written in Greek with Hebrew stylings. It may have been written in hebrew, but we haven’t found copies. The book of Sirach was recently found in Hebrew. Why did the Jews in Jamnia leave out these books? Was it because they only had Greek translations? Wasn’t the translation of the septuagint a translation into Greek of the Hebrew books? Why would they be in there if they weren’t translated from hebrew in the first place? Or were there other reasons?


#40

[quote=wisdom 3:5] OK. I didn’t read all the posts here but wanted to add this tidbit. I went to a bible study at U of I on the book of Wisdom, with Msgr. Swetland.

He said that the book of Wisdom was written in Greek with Hebrew stylings. It may have been written in hebrew, but we haven’t found copies. The book of Sirach was recently found in Hebrew. Why did the Jews in Jamnia leave out these books? Was it because they only had Greek translations? Wasn’t the translation of the septuagint a translation into Greek of the Hebrew books? Why would they be in there if they weren’t translated from hebrew in the first place? Or were there other reasons?
[/quote]

The two main traditions of Jews, Palestinian and Alexandrian, follow two differing sets of books. The Pharisees (Alexandrian) and the Sadducees (Palestinian), followed two different sets of teachings. The Sadducees did not believe in the bodily resurrection:

[quote=DR] Matthew 22,23 That day there came to him the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection;
[/quote]

Which of course is well established in Maccabees (the deuterocannon). After the second destruction of the Temple (around 70 a.d.) the Jews felt they had angered God. They felt the Greek influence as well as the Christian influence were the problems. The Greek followed the Alexandrian texts as did the Christians. Seems pretty simple to me which group of texts they would approve. The problem wasn’t the language the texts were written in, I’m sure there were many texts written in Hebrew which were not accepted as Scripture.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.