 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
New Creation Member
| Joined: | Thu Nov 22nd, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 76 |
| First Name: | Paula | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | wicca 9 yrs, Anglican 5 yrs, RCIA now! |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 10th, 2008 04:41 am |
|
I have a friend- my best friend- who is a new Christian. I want to send her a bible with the deuterocanon for her birthday which is less than a month from now.
She is attending a Presbyterian church and two weeks ago in her weekly discipling class with her pastor, he asked her if she knew what the "Septuagint" was and also the Council of Trent- this leads me to believe that she has mentioned to him that her closest friend is attending the Catholic church. Or perhaps I'm just paranoid. Either way, I want her to have the WHOLE Bible. I also want to give her a little background on the Bible and how the books were chosen and how they came to be.
From the Michael Cumbie cd's (former Baptist/Charismatic/Anglican pastor convert to Catholic church) I have put together a brief essay explaining this stuff.
Please correct and critique this for me! Also, please add anything that you feel would be helpful!
The Septuagint (sɛptuədʒɪnt) is the Greek version of the Hebrew Bible, translated in stages between the 3rd and 1st centuries BC in Alexandria. The Septuagint also includes some books not found in the Hebrew Bible.
It is the oldest of several ancient translations of the Hebrew Bible into Greek, the common language of the Mediterranean since Alexander the Great (356-323 BC) and it was very popular. The word septuaginta means "seventy" in Latin and derives from a tradition that seventy (or seventy-two, six from each tribe) Jewish scholars translated the Pentateuch (Torah) from Hebrew into Greek for Ptolemy II Philadelphus, 285–246 BC.
The Hebrew language was dying out. Jews in Palestine mostly spoke Aramaic so it is not surprising that the Septuagint was the translation used by Jesus Christ and the New Testament writers.
The majority of the Old Testament quotes found in the New Testament are from the Septuagint. Protestant authors Archer and Cherigno list 340 places where the N.T. cites the Septuagint but only 33 places where the Hebrew Canon is cited.
The Septuagint contains 46 books but the Hebrew Canon contains only 39 books. Why?
Hebrew Canon was established by Jewish Rabbis about 100 A.D. at the Council of Jamnia. It was established in reaction to the growing Christian Church and for the preservation of the dying Hebrew language at least for religious purposes.
The rabbis could not find any ORIGINAL Hebrew copies of those books- 1 & 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach, Judith, Baruch, Tobit, plus portions of Daniel and Esther. Maccabees specifically was very pro-Roman, they felt. Maccabees talks about God having established government and that we the people should be subject to the authority that is over us.
Now Rome, only 30 years prior, had raped and pillaged Jerusalem and the Temple. The Jews hated the Romans. Maccabees talks about not only praying for the dead, but for praying for those who have authority over you. The Jews didn't sit well with this.
Since the new Christian Church emerged out of Judaism, the Jews felt that Christianity was helping to destroy Judaism. They didn’t like the Greek Canon being used by the Christians so the Jews at Jamnia rejected those seven books. They did this chiefly on the grounds that they could not find any Hebrew versions of the books (and because of pro-Roman Maccabees).
The Christian Church continued to use the Greek (Septuagint) version and it was officially approved and closed at the council of Hippo in 393 A.D. and the Council of Carthage in 397 A.D.
This was the Bible used by the entire Christian church for 16 centuries until in 1529, Martin Luther proposed the Hebrew Canon as the real Canon. His justification for removing the seven books from the Bible was the old concerns of the council of Jamnia (the Jewish Rabbis) and St. Jerome that the Greek books had no Hebrew counterparts. (However, in 1948 at Qumram, when they found the dead sea scrolls, they found copies of some of those books in Hebrew which washed away that argument altogether.)
Luther, obviously upset with the Catholic Church, did the opposite of the church, using the Hebrew Canon rather than the Greek. Luther also tried to have the books of James, Esther, and Revelation omitted from the bible. He also added the word “alone” to his German translation in Romans 3:28 “For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law.” but he later (lucky for him!) took it out.
Protestants have been using that version ever since and most don’t know the story behind it. I only learned it recently myself. I wanted you to have the whole story right off the bat.
____________________ always a seeker
|
|
|
In the cloud of unknowing Member
| Joined: | Wed May 7th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 6 |
| First Name: | Ricardo | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic,Lapsed, Deist, interested again. |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 10th, 2008 05:31 am |
|
Hi Paula!
You are right. Also most Protestant Bibles were printed with the deuterocanonical books until the 1800s between the Masoretic OT and the NT. They were actually pulled out by British and American Bible printers as a cost saving measure!
I think that there are several options for a gift if you do not want her to give her a Catholic Bible, that might be a bit confusing for a New Christian.
1. If she uses the KJV give her a replica of the original with the deuterocanon. I think Cambrige University Press prints them in that way.
2. Give her the New English Tranlation of the Septuagint OT (the NETS) I heard its superb.
3. Give her a ecumenical Bible with the deuterocanon between the Masoretic OT and the NT in Martin Luthers way. I think the Good News Bible and the RSV come in that way if you want them in that way.
Saludos, Ricardo.
|
|
|
DrDave Member

| Joined: | Mon Nov 6th, 2006 |
| Location: | Mildura, Australia |
| Posts: | 289 |
| First Name: | Dave | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Cradle - Lapsed - Renewed Catholic |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 10th, 2008 06:22 am |
|
New Creation wrote: Hebrew Canon was established by Jewish Rabbis about 100 A.D. at the Council of Jamnia. It was established in reaction to the growing Christian Church and for the preservation of the dying Hebrew language at least for religious purposes.
I would suggest a variation of your argument here. What you have stated, while being substantially correct, gives the impression that Judaism was and is a monolithic entity much like the Catholic Church. This impression of "The Jews" gives an air of authority to the decision regarding the canon that is not perhaps helpful to the point you're trying to make.
I would rather suggest - "The canon currently in use by most modern day Jews can be traced back to the Council of Jamnia etc."
It might be helpful to point out as has been mentioned in other threads that at the time of Christ there were several Jewish groups (the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the Essenes, the Samaritans, the Christians etc.) most of whom used slightly different canons, some only accepting the first five books of the bible "the law" etc.
Similarly I have heard in several talks that a long standing community of Jews in Ethiopia have always used the Septuagint as their canon, again disputing the alleged "authority" of the Council of Jamnia, which, at the end of the day was a council of Jews who were sore at the newly emerging Christians who, by and large escaped the persecution rained down upon the Jews surrounding the destruction of the Temple etc in 70AD.
Regards Doc
____________________ NB: 'DrDave' is a nickname from college not and indication of academic achievement.
|
|
|
New Creation Member
| Joined: | Thu Nov 22nd, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 76 |
| First Name: | Paula | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | wicca 9 yrs, Anglican 5 yrs, RCIA now! |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 10th, 2008 04:00 pm |
|
Thanks for your time friends! I will incorporate those into my essay. I already have a bible that I'm going to send- it's the NRSV with Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books.
Nice to see you here Ricardo! Doesn't this place rock?
Thanks for your comments Dave!
Any other comments are totally welcome!
____________________ always a seeker
|
|
|
Dave Armstrong Network Apologist

| Joined: | Fri Nov 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Melvindale, Michigan USA |
| Posts: | 2445 |
| First Name: | Dave | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Evangelical (1977): Diverse Protestant Influences / Catholic in 1990 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 10th, 2008 08:25 pm |
|
Hi Paula,
For general information, see my papers:
The "Apocrypha": Why It's Part of the Bible
Reply Concerning the Canonicity of the So-Called "Apocrypha" (vs. Dr. John Ankerberg & Dr. John Weldon)
Dialogue on Objections to the "Apocrypha" (vs. Dr. Norman Geisler)
Possible References to the Deuterocanon (aka "Apocrypha") in the New Testament (RSV) (+ Parts Two | Three | Four | Five | Six | Seven | Eight | Nine)
Hebrew Canon was established by Jewish Rabbis about 100 A.D. at the Council of Jamnia. It was established in reaction to the growing Christian Church and for the preservation of the dying Hebrew language at least for religious purposes.
This is untrue, as I discovered and documented in a dialogue with a Protestant apologist:
----------------------------------------------
There was a "general" canonical consensus with regard to the New Testament, but that wasn't sufficient to resolve the problem. Likewise, there was a general consensus of the Jews with regard to the Old Testament which wasn't totally sufficient, either. Accordingly, Protestant biblical scholarship tells us that in the last four centuries before Christ:
It is clear that in those days the Jews had holy books to which they attached authority. It cannot be proved that there was already a complete Canon, although the expression 'the holy books' (1 Macc. 12:9) may point in that direction.
(The New Bible Dictionary, ed. J.D. Douglas, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1962 ed., 190, "Canon of the Old Testament")
As for the New Testament period:
More than once the suggestion has been made that the synod of Jabneh or Jamnia, said to have been held about AD 90, closed the Canon of the Old Testament and fixed the limits of the Canon. To speak about the 'synod of Jamnia' at all, however, is to beg the question . . . It is true, certainly, that in the teaching-house of Jamnia, about AD 70-100, certain discussions were held, and certain decisions were made concerning some books of the Old Testament; but similar discussions were held both before and after that period . . . These discussions dealt chiefly with the question as to whether or not some books of the Old Testament (e.g. Esther, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Ezekiel) 'soiled the hands' or had to be 'concealed' . . . As regards the phrase 'soil the hands', the prevailing opinion is that it referred to the canonicity of the book in question . . . If indeed the canonicity of Esther, Ecclesiastes, and Canticles was disputed, we shall have to take the following view. On the whole these books were considered canonical. But with some, and probably with some Rabbis in particular, the question arose whether people were right in accepting their canonicity, as, e.g., Luther in later centuries found it difficult to consider Esther as a canonical book . . .
We may presume that the twenty-two books mentioned by Josephus are identical with the thirty-nine books of which the Old Testament consists according to our reckoning . . . For the sake of completeness we must observe that Josephus also uses books which we count among the Apocrypha, e.g. 1 Esdras and the additions to Esther . . .
(Ibid., 191)
The so-called Council of Jamnia (c. A.D. 90), at which time this third section of writings is alleged to have been canonized, has not been explored. There was no council held with authority for Judaism. It was only a gathering of scholars. This being the case, there was no authorized body present to make or recognize the canon. Hence, no canonization took place at Jamnia.
(From God to Us: How we Got our Bible, co-author William E. Nix, Chicago: Moody Press, 1974, 84)
The suggestion that a particular synod of Jamnia, held c. 100 A.D., finally settled the limits of the OT Canon, was made by H.E. Ryle; though it has had a wide currency, there is no evidence to substantiate it.
(Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, Oxford University Press, ed. F.L. Cross and E.A. Livingstone, 1989, 726, "Jamnia or Jabneh")
It is probably unwise to talk as if there was a Council or Synod of Jamnia which laid down the limits of the Old Testament canon . . .
A common, and not unreasonable, account of the formation of the Old Testament canon is that it took shape in three stages . . . The Law was first canonized (early in the period after the return from the Babylonian exile), the Prophets next (late in the third century BC) . . . the third division, the Writings . . . remained open until the end of the first century AD, when it was 'closed' at Jamnia. But it must be pointed out that, for all its attractiveness, this account is completely hypothetical: there is no evidence for it, either in the Old Testament itself or elsewhere. We have evidence in the Old Testament of the public recognition of scripture as conveying the word of God, but that is not the same thing as canonization.
(F.F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture, Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988, 34, 36)
Differences of opinion also are recorded among the tannaim (rabbinical scholars of tradition who compiled the Mishna, or Oral Law) and amoraim (who created the Talmud, or Gemara) about the canonical status of Proverbs, Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, and Esther. All this indicates a prolonged state of fluidity in respect of the canonization of the Ketuvim ["the Writings"]. A synod at Jabneh (c. 100 CE) seems to have ruled on the matter, but it took a generation or two before their decisions came to be unanimously accepted and the Ketuvim regarded as being definitively closed.
(Encyclopedia Britannica, 1985 ed., vol. 14 {Macropedia}, 758, "Biblical Literature," "Old Testament canon, texts, versions")
Last edited on Tue Jun 10th, 2008 08:27 pm by Dave Armstrong
____________________ I'm happy to offer whatever theological & personal assistance I can. My blog, Biblical Evidence for Catholicism, contains 2100+ papers & web pages (free) & 17 apologetic books (4 sale: 15 E-Books: $25)
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/
|
|
|
Dave Armstrong Network Apologist

| Joined: | Fri Nov 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Melvindale, Michigan USA |
| Posts: | 2445 |
| First Name: | Dave | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Evangelical (1977): Diverse Protestant Influences / Catholic in 1990 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 10th, 2008 08:33 pm |
|
As for Martin Luther and the canon, you might want to check out my papers:
Luther's Outrageous Assertions About Certain Biblical Books (Protestant Scholars' Opinions and "Debate" With John Warwick Montgomery)
Did Martin Luther Deny the Canonicity of Esther?
I recently discovered that Luther believed in soul sleep. This goes a long way to explain why he rejected purgatory and prayers for the dead (neither makes sense if souls aren't conscious). Also, it may have played a role in his rejection of the deuterocanon, as at least one of them (2 Maccabees 12:39-45) clearly taught prayers for the dead.
____________________ I'm happy to offer whatever theological & personal assistance I can. My blog, Biblical Evidence for Catholicism, contains 2100+ papers & web pages (free) & 17 apologetic books (4 sale: 15 E-Books: $25)
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/
|
|
|
New Creation Member
| Joined: | Thu Nov 22nd, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 76 |
| First Name: | Paula | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | wicca 9 yrs, Anglican 5 yrs, RCIA now! |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 10th, 2008 10:12 pm |
|
Wow, I knew it was too easy to be true! I'm going to look over all that stuff over the next few days Dave, and try and put together a relatively simple essay for my friend.
One thing that bothers me is that Michael Cumbie is saying this stuff on EWTN. I bought his dvd's and have wanted to lend them to a few of my Protestant friends. Thank God you caught my errors before she learned the wrong stuff!
Thank you so much for taking the time to do that.
____________________ always a seeker
|
|
|
David W. Emery Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2521 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 10th, 2008 10:38 pm |
|
In like manner, Paula, I am wondering how one could verify the following statement from your essay:
The Hebrew language was dying out. Jews in Palestine mostly spoke Aramaic so it is not surprising that the Septuagint was the translation used by Jesus Christ and the New Testament writers.
I wasn’t aware that Jesus ever personally used the Septuagint. Even in (the then Hellenized) Egypt when he was small, I should think that his family, being Palestinians in a strange land, would have preferred to hear the original Hebrew scriptures proclaimed in the synagogue liturgy. Actually possessing a copy of the sacred writings was, of course, out of the question for poor people.
David
|
|
|
In the cloud of unknowing Member
| Joined: | Wed May 7th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 6 |
| First Name: | Ricardo | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic,Lapsed, Deist, interested again. |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 11th, 2008 04:19 am |
|
According to most scholars, the quotations of Jesus from the OT come from the Septuagint.
The Protestants often say that that the Jews used the 66 Masoretic canon books.
The problem is that the "Jews" had many sects in Jesus times.
The Diaspora Jews used the Septuagint as the Ethiopian Jews do today.
The Pharisees used the Masoretic Canon of modern rabinnical Jews and Protestants. When St Jerome tried to adopt that canon, St Augustine warned him that he was using the canon of the Pharisees, Jesus enemies.
The Saducees only believed in the Torah.
The Escenes of Quram used nearly every book available!
The Masoretic Canon was established by Rabbis of that denomination, the most influential was Hillel. Is a man made canon too. So the Protestants put more credit in the teaching of Pharisee Rabbis that Christian Church Councils. I recomend Daniel Colodenco, a Argentine jewish scholar books in spanish. Some books like Wisdom and Ben Sirach were left out the Jewish canon because they were too Christian. And the Reformers them left out those book too because the Jews did not accept them!
|
|
|
 Current time is 04:13 am | |
|
|
|
 |
|