The Old Testament Books, the deuterocanonical books not in the Jewish Bible, WHY NOT?

Ok, so a website was givin to me, and it says the following:

The Hebrew Bible includes the same books as the Protestant Old Testament, but not the deuterocanonical portions of the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Old Testament

Ok, so we would all agree taht our religion comes from the Jewish Religion, so why is it that we have these books when the Jews didn’t have them as sacred scripture? I don’t understand how we could just “Add” books. We get some of our believes from the following books (ie:Purgatory), and I have heard people say that Purgatory is also a Jewish Belief, so I just don’t understand?

Ok. You got me thinking. I seem to remember a very good friend of mine explaining this to me once. I believe that she said that after Christs’ resurrection, those books were removed by the Jews. (Ahh. Time for some research)

We didn’t add those books. We just didn’t delete them.

[quote=rianredd1088]Ok, so a website was givin to me, and it says the following:

The Hebrew Bible includes the same books as the Protestant Old Testament, but not the deuterocanonical portions of the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Old Testament

Ok, so we would all agree taht our religion comes from the Jewish Religion, so why is it that we have these books when the Jews didn’t have them as sacred scripture? I don’t understand how we could just “Add” books. We get some of our believes from the following books (ie:Purgatory), and I have heard people say that Purgatory is also a Jewish Belief, so I just don’t understand?
[/quote]

In 95AD the Jews held the council of Jamnia. In this council they chose the canon they would teach. They did this to separate themselves from the Christians. There canon did not include the duetero-canonicals.

Before the council of Jamnia they taught from the septuagint. Jesus taught from the septuagint. The duetero-canonicals were included in the septuagint.
Here is a link to a list of books in the septuagint. The duetero-canonicals are in it.
ccel.org/bible/brenton/

The Jews rejected Jesus, who is the fullfillment of the old testament. When they did this they lost there authority.

What Jimmy said. In plain words, the Jews didn’t agree on what would be in their “bible” until after even the New Testament was written down. Prior to that the Scriptures were much more fluid, as can be seen by Peter and Jude quoting from The Book of Enoch, which isn’t including in any modern canons.

OK LET ME SEE IF I GOT THIS RIGHT, THE CHRISTIANS TOOK THE BOOKS THAT WERE IN THE JEWISH OLD TESTAMENT, AND THE DEUTEROCANONICAL BOOKS WERE INCLUDED IN THERE. THE JEWS TOOK THESE BOOKS OUT TO SEPERATE THEMSELVES FROM THE CHRISTIANS.

WOW THIS IS A KOOL SUBJECT, INTERESTING.

[quote=rianredd1088]Ok, so a website was givin to me, and it says the following:

The Hebrew Bible includes the same books as the Protestant Old Testament, but not the deuterocanonical portions of the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Old Testament

Ok, so we would all agree taht our religion comes from the Jewish Religion, so why is it that we have these books when the Jews didn’t have them as sacred scripture? I don’t understand how we could just “Add” books. We get some of our believes from the following books (ie:Purgatory), and I have heard people say that Purgatory is also a Jewish Belief, so I just don’t understand?
[/quote]

If you are interested in lots of details:
go to the www.EWTN.com site, and then to their document library and search deuterocanonical… lots of info.

also…a debate was held in May in Rhode Island on the subject. It featured a very anti-Catholic debater, James White of AlphaOmega Ministries saying the 7 books are not inspired and not a in the Canon. The Catholic position was defended by Gary Michuta, an apologist from Livonia/AnnArbor Michigan. The nearly 3-hour debate is available on DVD, CD, VHS, and Audio Cassette. Order by contacting Gary at gmichuta@avemarialaw.edu for prices and details. It is, admittedly not the most rousing subject.
As stated already, Catholics acknowledge all 46 old Testament books, traditionally, from the beginning of the Church. Gary’s explanations of questions like “Jesus didn’t quote from these books” or This “book has an error that makes it uninspired” etc have to be listened to to understand how the Protestant (J.White) position usually starts with a false assumption.

enjoy

MrShttp://forums.catholic.com/images/icons/icon14.gif

It’s more accurate to say that the Christians kept the books that were in the most common collection of Jewish Scripture, namely the Greek language collection called the Septuagint. The post-Christian Jews used a different collection, the Hebrew one in use in Palestine, as there basis. The Septuagint was actually older than the Hebrew collection of the day, and had been considered inspired Scripture. For example Paul was a Pharisee and seemingly well placed in the Jewish community, and he taught from the Greek writtings long before the Council of Jamnia.

[quote=rianredd1088]Ok, so a website was givin to me, and it says the following:

The Hebrew Bible includes the same books as the Protestant Old Testament, but not the deuterocanonical portions of the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Old Testament

Ok, so we would all agree taht our religion comes from the Jewish Religion, so why is it that we have these books when the Jews didn’t have them as sacred scripture? I don’t understand how we could just “Add” books. We get some of our believes from the following books (ie:Purgatory), and I have heard people say that Purgatory is also a Jewish Belief, so I just don’t understand?
[/quote]

It actually depends on which sect of Judaism you’re in. For instance, the Sadducees only had the Pentateuch, the first five books of the old testament. The pharisees didn’t accept the prophets or the septuigent, but accepted everything else. The Alexandrian Jews, that spoke Greek and lived in Alexandria Egypt had the same books that we Catholics, NOT JUST ROMAN CATHOLICS have. The Jews didn’t have one canon of scripture. As a matter of fact, the Alexandrians were the ONLY Jews to accept the writings and accounts of the prophets. Now, why to protestants have those, when Jews don’t? :cool:

Can anyone explain to me how we KNOW that Jesus and the apostles quoted from the septuagint as opposed to the Hebrew canon of Scripture? Can you give me examples and any proof? I will find this info greatly helpful since it’s been awhile since I last researched the subject and forgot most of it. Also, I’m still a fairly new Catholic. Thanks and God bless! - Mfaustina1

[quote=Mfaustina1]Can anyone explain to me how we KNOW that Jesus and the apostles quoted from the septuagint as opposed to the Hebrew canon of Scripture? Can you give me examples and any proof? I will find this info greatly helpful since it’s been awhile since I last researched the subject and forgot most of it. Also, I’m still a fairly new Catholic. Thanks and God bless! - Mfaustina1
[/quote]

Because the Hebrew canon was not chosen till 95AD at the council of Jamnia.

Here is a link to a list of some references from the new testament to the Duetero-canonicals. They weren’t in the Hebrew bible.

[font=Book Antiqua]St. Augustine:
As to your saying that these books which you call apocryphal are not received by the Jew, you say nothing new or important. S. Augustine loudly exclaims: “It is the Catholic Church which holds the Books of Machabees as Canonical, but not the Jews.” Thank God, we are not Jews, we are Catholics. Show me from Scripture that the Christian Church has not as much power to give authority to the sacred books as the Mosaic may have had. There is not in this either Scripture or reason to show for it. (The Catholic Controversy, p. 99)

“There are approximately 350 quotations in the New Testament of the Old Testament. Of these 350 quotations 300 come from the Greek Septuagint. It was the Old Testament Bible of the first century Christians. Jesus quoted from it.” (Encyclopedia Judaica, vol. 6, p. 1147)

The new testament quotes the LXX(Septuagint) about 300 times.

[font=Book Antiqua]“The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind” (Lk. 4:18-19)

[/font]

Hebrew Text

[font=Book Antiqua]"The Spirit of the Lord

GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound" (Isa. 61:1-2, HMT)
[/font]

LXX Text

[font=Book Antiqua]"The Spirit of the Lord

is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind" (Isa. 61:1-2 LXX) [/font]

[/font]

sorry I did not leave my links.

catholicapologetics.net/1611_CROSS_REFERENCES.htm
catholicapologetics.net/nt_and_duthtm.htm
catholicapologetics.net/no_quotes.htm
catholicapologetics.net/septuagint_and_the_jews_in_ethio.htm

There are some excellent prophecies of Jesus in the Deuterocanonicals, for example

Then shall the just one with great assurance confront his oppressors who set at nought his labors. Seeing this, they shall be shaken with dreadful fear, and amazed at the unlooked-for salvation. They shall say among themselves, rueful and groaning through anguish of spirit: "This is he whom once we held as a laughingstock and as a type for mockery, fools that we were! His life we accounted madness, and his death dishonored. See how he is accounted among the sons of God; how his lot is with the saints! We, then, have strayed from the way of truth, and the light of justice did not shine for us, and the sun did not rise for us. We had our fill of the ways of mischief and of ruin; we journeyed through impassable deserts, but the way of the LORD we knew not.

Wisdom 5:1-7

One can understand the Jews reluctance to retain them, but wonders why the Protestants were anxious to get rid of them.

[quote=jimmy]In 95AD the Jews held the council of Jamnia. In this council they chose the canon they would teach. They did this to separate themselves from the Christians. There canon did not include the duetero-canonicals.
[/quote]

Hey Jimmy, can you tell me what is your source for the above information? Where did you read about the council of Jamnia and what exactly did they do there?

Before the council of Jamnia they taught from the septuagint. Jesus taught from the septuagint.

This is another one. Where did you find that Jesus taught from the LXX?

The duetero-canonicals were included in the septuagint.
Here is a link to a list of books in the septuagint. The duetero-canonicals are in it.
ccel.org/bible/brenton/

Why is the Septuagint authoritative? What made it authoritative?

The Jews rejected Jesus, who is the fullfillment of the old testament. When they did this they lost there authority.

When they lost their authority, what did this entail? I mean, did the OT books change as a result of their loss? Or did they remain the same? Did the Deuterocanonical books legitimize as a result of their loss of authority? I don’t understand how what exactly changed other then the Covenant.

Peace,
CM

Jimmy-

Thanks for taking the time to respond to my question and post the great sites for me to look up! May God richly bless you! I’ve read many times that the deuterocanonicals were quoted from or paraphrased, but never could prove it on my own since I’d forgotten much of the info I learned and even that wasn’t very complete. So, thanks again! - Mfaustina1

I love this forum! :slight_smile:

[quote=Churchmouse]Hey Jimmy, can you tell me what is your source for the above information? Where did you read about the council of Jamnia and what exactly did they do there?
[/quote]

You can find this information anywhere. Do a search for it on the internet. You will find the same thing I put here. What I posted did not have any Catholic slant to it.

[quote=Churchmouse] This is another one. Where did you find that Jesus taught from the LXX?
[/quote]

Well here is something for you. The fact that “Justin’s Horatory adress to the Greeks” describes the History of the Septuagint in chapter XIII as if it is the scriptures.
ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-49.htm#P5378_1238424

[quote=Churchmouse] Why is the Septuagint authoritative? What made it authoritative?
[/quote]

Read above Justin thought it was authoritative enough when he described the History of it.

Here is an epistle of something by Justin that talks about it in chapter 71. This is the second part of a larger work.
catholicfirst.com/thefaith/churchfathers/volume01/justinmartyr04.cfm

Heres another one for you. In Iranaeus’s “Against Herresies-Book III” he defends the Septuagint in chapter XXI section 3.
ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-60.htm#P7836_2143030

[quote=Churchmouse]When they lost their authority, what did this entail? I mean, did the OT books change as a result of their loss? Or did they remain the same? Did the Deuterocanonical books legitimize as a result of their loss of authority? I don’t understand how what exactly changed other then the Covenant.
[/quote]

They lost any further authority they had. What was done before Jesus came down to earth was perfectly authoritative. But they rejected Jesus and they tried to change the canon in order to separate themselves from the Christians. The question is not why do we reject the Jewish canon but why do you accept it. Would you let a blind man drive you around in your car on the bases that he could see at one time in the past?

[quote=jimmy]You can find this information anywhere. Do a search for it on the internet. You will find the same thing I put here. What I posted did not have any Catholic slant to it.
[/quote]

Actually Jimmy, you’ll have to try a little harder. The council of Jamnia didn’t change or throw out anything. They questioned some canonical books (Ecclesiastes, maybe Song of Songs) to see if “it made the hands unclean”, but as to throwing out Deuterocanonicals and such, they did no such thing. This debate carried over until the 2nd century, but again nothing changed as evidenced by the fact that the Jews today still include these books in their canon. There were some discussions at various times regarding some Deuterocanonicals, such as Sirach and Baruch, but nothing changed and they kept their status. It is safe to say that the uncanonicals remained uncanonical and the canonicals remained canonical. Regarding Jamnia, Anglican scholar Roger Beckwith states:

The assumption that the canon was closed at Jamnia about AD 90 has been elaborated by different writers in various ways. Some have seen it as part of the reorganization of Judaism after the fall of Jerusalem; some, as part of the polemic against Christianity; and some, as of a piece with the standardization of the Massoretic text. If, however, the canon was not closed about AD 90 but a long time before, all these corollaries lose the premise on which they depend. Similarly, any inference that the canon was decided by councils must be abandoned. The session at Jamnia was not a council, and the decision it made was not regarded as authoritative: and, in so far as the earliest important Christian council to deal with the canon was the third Council of Carthage, as late as AD 397. ***The role of councils, therefore, was not so much to decide the canon as to confirm decisions about the canon already reached in other ways *** (Roger Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church, p.276-277).

Well here is something for you. The fact that “Justin’s Horatory adress to the Greeks” describes the History of the Septuagint in chapter XIII as if it is the scriptures.
ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-49.htm#P5378_1238424

This doesn’t mean anything really, Jimmy. There were some church fathers and other prominent Catholics who believed the Deuterocanonicals to be Scriptures and, thus, held to the LXX and others that didn’t. A cursory scan of the web page you submitted says nothing of what you claimed earlier, that Jesus taught from the LXX. Care to try again?

Read above Justin thought it was authoritative enough when he described the History of it.

Well, maybe Justin did, but that’s hardly evidence that the Deuterocanonicals were accepted canonically. The plain truth of the matter is that there were some who did and others who didn’t. It hardly makes a case for authority.

Here is an epistle of something by Justin that talks about it in chapter 71. This is the second part of a larger work.
catholicfirst.com/thefaith/churchfathers/volume01/justinmartyr04.cfm

Already responded to.

…continued…

Heres another one for you. In Iranaeus’s “Against Herresies-Book III” he defends the Septuagint in chapter XXI section 3.
ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-60.htm#P7836_2143030

Again, it proves that “Irenaeus” thought the Septuagint to be authoritative, but it doesn’t make the case for everyone else.

They lost any further authority they had. What was done before Jesus came down to earth was perfectly authoritative. But they rejected Jesus and they tried to change the canon in order to separate themselves from the Christians.

Again, you’re assuming they did, but I don’t know why you do. They didn’t change anything. None of the canonicals became uncanonical and none of the uncanonicals became canonical. How and when did they “change the canon” and how would you know for sure that they did?

The question is not why do we reject the Jewish canon but why do you accept it. Would you let a blind man drive you around in your car on the bases that he could see at one time in the past?

By the same token, did Jerome allow a blind man to drive him around considering he denied the Deuterocanonicals as well? I accept the OT as is considering these were the books accepted before and after the New Covenant. I haven’t seen or read anything that would make me believe otherwise.

Jimmy, in the above statement you attempt to throw the onus on me, but that isn’t relevant at the moment. You posted and I’m questioning what you stated in the post. Again, the Jews adhered to a set of books which, evidently, at no time included the Deuterocanonicals. I am expected to believe that when Jesus came, the Jews somehow lost their authority over the very “oracles” they were entrusted with (Rom.3:2) and miraculously the other books became a part of OT Scripture. Something doesn’t make sense here.

How did they lose their authority and how does this translate to a change in OT Scripture? Do you have evidence that the Deuterocanonicals were accepted as “canonical” Scripture at any time by the Jews and that they were “thrown out” at Jamnia or elsewhere?

Not trying to give you a hard time here, friend, but I don’t know how you came to these conclusions.

Peace,
CM

How did they lose their authority and how does this translate to a change in OT Scripture? Do you have evidence that the Deuterocanonicals were accepted as “canonical” Scripture at any time by the Jews and that they were “thrown out” at Jamnia or elsewhere?

Are you arguing that Paul didn’t teach from the Septuagint, espescially in his inspired writing? If so, you’re on very shaky ground. Are you arguing that the Septuagint doesn’t include the Deuterocanonicals? Again, you’d be on shaky ground. I guess I’m confused as to what your point is.

A very helpful piece on this topic:
columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/sbrandt/canon.htm

[quote=Ghosty]Are you arguing that Paul didn’t teach from the Septuagint, espescially in his inspired writing? If so, you’re on very shaky ground. Are you arguing that the Septuagint doesn’t include the Deuterocanonicals? Again, you’d be on shaky ground. I guess I’m confused as to what your point is.
[/quote]

Hello Ghosty,

I don’t know where you picked that up, but I never said nothing of the sort. Obviously, Jesus, Paul, James, the Ethiopian eunuch, etc. all quoted from the Septuagint. However, this doesn’t mean that the "Deuterocanonicals: were adhered to any more than Paul quoting pagans such as Aratus of Soli (Acts 17:28), Menander (1 Cor.15:32), and Epimenides (Tit.1:12) makes the totality of their writings adherent. Neither does this make an argument for Christ holding the Septuagint as the authoritative text (or any of the others for that matter).

As for my point: The assumption that Christ and the Apostles held the Septuagint as authoritative is shaky. This cannot be gathered just because they quoted from the Septuagint.

Peace,
CM

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.