 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
calatorul
Member
| Joined: | Tue Aug 26th, 2008 |
| Location: | Midlands, South Carolina |
| Posts: | 42 |
| First Name: | Joey | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Baptist |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 26th, 2008 12:50 pm |
|
I recently bought the Orthodox Study Bible. I mainly bought it because the Old Testament is translated from the Greek Septuagint. I have to admit that for scholarly comparative purposes alone I am in love with it.
The Septuagint is far older than the Masoretic Hebrew, the textual base of most modern Bibles, and was used by the Apostles and the early Church. I may need to recheck, but I believe there are only about four cases where quotes from the Old Testament in the New agree with the Masoretic vs. the Septuagint. Whereas most Old Testament quotes found in the New agree with the Septuagint.
I don't yet own a copy of the Douay-Rheims translation, but read it regularly online here. I've noticed that many passages from the Vulgate more closely resemble those in the Septuagint than in the Masoretic (and sometimes vice versa).
Does the Catholic Church still recognize the Vulgate translation as official?
-AND-
What about certain books? Namely what's called in the NRSV and KJV "1 Esdras", "3 Maccabees", the "Prayer of Manasseh" and "Psalm 151". What place, if any, do these books (or chapters) hold in the Catholic Church?
Last edited on Tue Aug 26th, 2008 12:57 pm by calatorul
____________________
"By the higher mystical ascent from matters that concern ourselves to that transcendent nature we gain a knowledge of the Word,... by observing in our own nature certain shadows and resemblances of His ineffable power." St. Gregory of Nyssa
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2522 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 26th, 2008 02:55 pm |
|
Hello Joey. Welcome to the forum.
Yes, the Septuagint is a good source for study and understanding. We just need to remember that it is a translation, not the original text. So the Hebrew text, which for the most part is very well preserved, considering how ancient it is, is still of great value. Note also that archeologists have discovered a number of biblical manuscripts, especially among the Dead Sea scrolls, that predate not only the Masoretic text but also the Christian era. These manuscripts as a whole often give witness to readings that favor the Septuagint’s renderings.
Does the Catholic Church still recognize the Vulgate translation as official?
The Vulgate was only “official” in the sense that it was recognized by the Church as free from doctrinal error. It was the standard text for many centuries simply because people accepted it. The Protestant Reformation, which occurred shortly after the invention of the printing press, which in turn brought about the technological capability of making the bible available for the first time to all who could read, provoked the reactionary Catholic stance that kept the Vulgate as a monument to its tradition until about 50 years ago. In 1978, a successor to St. Jerome’s Vulgate bible, the Nova Vulgata, was published. It is the result of recent scholarship, but preserves continuity with the traditional understanding of the bible texts. The work is in Latin because this is still the official language of the Catholic Church at the highest levels of authority. The Nova Vulgata has no “authority” in the sense of being a definitive text; its purpose is to give an example, like Jerome’s work, of the best of scholarship for its time. The Church recommends its approach to all who would translate the bible into other languages.
There are several English translations of the bible which have a bishop’s acceptance for Catholic use (the official sign of this is the “imprimatur” in the front of a book). This again does not constitute official authority or approval, but only recognizes that the version does not contain anything expressly against the Catholic understanding of sacred scripture. We recognize that no translation is perfect because this is a linguistic impossibility; different languages, even if linguistically related, do not have a perfect one-to-one correspondence of how they handle thoughts, words and communication.
What about certain books? Namely what's called in the NRSV and KJV "1 Esdras", "3 Maccabees", the "Prayer of Manasseh" and "Psalm 151". What place, if any, do these books (or chapters) hold in the Catholic Church?
These are part of the true apocrypha. They are not accepted as inspired by the Catholic Church. They take their place as ancient witnesses to the faith of the Jews, but on a human level, along with the rabbinic writings of old — the Talmuds, the Targums, etc.
These works appear in Protestant versions of “scripture with apocrypha” because Protestants lump the deuterocanonical books (recognized as inspired by Catholics) together with the true apocrypha (the books you have listed in your question) as apocryphal. This distinction is based on the Masoretic text — the Christian era Jewish canon — as versus the Septuagint canon. (Some editions of the Septuagint contain the books you mention, and according to my understanding they are accepted piecemeal in certain sectors of the Eastern Orthodox Churches as “possibly” or “probably” inspired. The Catholic biblical canon is officially closed, but the Orthodox canon remains open because they have not officially considered the matter on the synodal level.) Martin Luther was one of the first Christians, historically, to accept the latter-day Jewish canon, and his lead has been followed by most Protestants since that time. However, there seems to be an increasing interest in the “lost books” of the Protestant canon among today’s Protestants, as your personal study shows.
David
|
|
|
calatorul
Member
| Joined: | Tue Aug 26th, 2008 |
| Location: | Midlands, South Carolina |
| Posts: | 42 |
| First Name: | Joey | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Baptist |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 26th, 2008 06:57 pm |
|
Thanks, David.
I wrote this rather lengthy response, but it disappeared somehow. 
Oh well.
I did, however, include this link regarding a comparison of the DSS, the LXX, and the MT. It's targeted toward showing where the LXX and DSS are more in agreement than the MT.
____________________
"By the higher mystical ascent from matters that concern ourselves to that transcendent nature we gain a knowledge of the Word,... by observing in our own nature certain shadows and resemblances of His ineffable power." St. Gregory of Nyssa
|
|
|
JillD
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Visalia, California USA |
| Posts: | 1001 |
| First Name: | Jill | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | heathen, EvFree, Messianic, LC-MS, Catholic 2007 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 26th, 2008 07:10 pm |
|
calatorul wrote: I wrote this rather lengthy response, but it disappeared somehow.
Hi Joey,
That happens on this forum from time to time. Highly recommended that you copy your post to your clipboard before hitting "Send." It's a bummer to lose a long post!
And I'll add my welcome to the others'. Glad you found this forum! It's been very helpful to me for about 2 years now.
Jill
____________________
"I praise you, for I am wondrously made. Wonderful are our works! My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret." Ps 139
"Guard me, O Lord, from the hands of the wicked; preserve me from violent men." Ps 140
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2522 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 26th, 2008 08:05 pm |
|
Ah yes, the sly and hidden monster that eats forum posts. Being a long-time professional user of computers, I have learned to save, save, save. And I do recommend that you compose your responses in your word processor rather than in the text entry box on the forum, because that box is where most of the damage is done.
The link you supply shows exactly what I had in mind when I said above that there was often a good correlation between the manuscript traditions of some of the recently discovered papyri and the Septuagint. By the way, I don’t know if you looked, but the same website has an interesting timeline of Christian history full of factual tidbits. It’s well enough done that one cannot, with only a casual look-see, tell what the author’s personal persuasion is.
We welcome any further questions you may have, whether follow-up or new.
David
|
|
|
calatorul
Member
| Joined: | Tue Aug 26th, 2008 |
| Location: | Midlands, South Carolina |
| Posts: | 42 |
| First Name: | Joey | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Baptist |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 27th, 2008 02:52 am |
|
I suppose a good starting place to clarify my questions would be, What was the purpose of "closed Canon of Scripture"? Wasn't it the Council of Trent that declared that? And, if there were no Protestant Reformation and the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, would it be necessary?
____________________
"By the higher mystical ascent from matters that concern ourselves to that transcendent nature we gain a knowledge of the Word,... by observing in our own nature certain shadows and resemblances of His ineffable power." St. Gregory of Nyssa
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2522 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 27th, 2008 03:54 am |
|
It is my understanding that the biblical canon was actually closed in the fourth century through a series of local and regional councils, all ratified by the pope (Rome, Hippo, Carthage; later there were a couple of councils in the east and a couple more in the west that did the same thing: enumerated the contents of inspired scripture). The Council of Trent merely reiterated the earlier findings at the ecumenical and dogmatic level, closing the book on it forever. It has been the Church’s policy to define a doctrine when it is necessary to do so (i.e., to defend against heresy), or when the doctrine has matured to the point that it cannot be held back (e.g., the 19th and 20th century definitions of Marian dogmas). If the Protestant Reformation had not occurred, there would have been no need to defend the Catholic understanding of the biblical canon, and the pronouncement would probably not have been made. The Council of Trent was still needed, however, to bring about certain reforms within the Church — in other words, to do what Luther had initially called for.
The Orthodox do not accept the fourth century councils as having closed the canon, apparently because they were not ecumenical councils. Nor do they recognize (even though they should have recognized it at the time, since they were still part of the one Church) the pope’s ratification of these councils as reinforcing their authority. However, St. Jerome did recognize these acts and abided by them, which is the reason he proceeded with the translation work that resulted in the Vulgate. This is actually an argument for the validity and authority of the early councils’ pronouncements, for otherwise Jerome would have been justified in rejecting them in favor of his own opinion that the Christian-era Jewish canon was correct.
David
|
|
|
NorthStar
Member
| Joined: | Sat Mar 15th, 2008 |
| Location: | Wisconsin USA |
| Posts: | 105 |
| First Name: | Chuck | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Roman Catholic, Evangelical, Orthodox |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 27th, 2008 06:16 pm |
|
David W. Emery wrote: It is my understanding that the biblical canon was actually closed in the fourth century through a series of local and regional councils, all ratified by the pope (Rome, Hippo, Carthage; later there were a couple of councils in the east and a couple more in the west that did the same thing: enumerated the contents of inspired scripture). The Council of Trent merely reiterated the earlier findings at the ecumenical and dogmatic level, closing the book on it forever. It has been the Church’s policy to define a doctrine when it is necessary to do so (i.e., to defend against heresy), or when the doctrine has matured to the point that it cannot be held back (e.g., the 19th and 20th century definitions of Marian dogmas). If the Protestant Reformation had not occurred, there would have been no need to defend the Catholic understanding of the biblical canon, and the pronouncement would probably not have been made. The Council of Trent was still needed, however, to bring about certain reforms within the Church — in other words, to do what Luther had initially called for.
This is exactly how the Orthodox view the Canon as well. We DO accept the 4th and 5th century councils about the what is and is not canon of Scripture, but since the East never had anyone trying to throw out huge chunks of the Bible like during the Reformation, there never was seen a need to officially close the matter forever or dogmatically.
Even most Orthodox who might read books like 3rd Maccabees etc...usually don't see them on the same level as the other books....like you said, they "probably are" inspired....yeah, we're just as confused as in the 4th century on this matter...LOL!
|
|
|
CajunRick
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| First Name: | | | Gender: | | | Faith History: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 27th, 2008 06:29 pm |
|
calatorul wrote: I suppose a good starting place to clarify my questions would be, What was the purpose of "closed Canon of Scripture"? Wasn't it the Council of Trent that declared that? And, if there were no Protestant Reformation and the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, would it be necessary?
It's important to note the difference between "doctrine" and "dogma".
In essence, dogma is doctrine that has been formally declared. The canon of scripture was doctrine for a thousand years before Trent declared it dogma. As David pointed out, there was no reason for a dogmatic pronouncement until the Protestant revolt and the attempt to eliminate certain books of both the Old and New Testament.
Catholics United for the Faith have a Faith Fact on the canon of scripture, which letters indicate Pope St. Innocent, St. Jerome and St. Augustine accepted in the early fifth century.
So in fact the matter was settled by the fifth century, but there was no reason for a formal pronouncement until the Protestant challenge, as it was universally accepted until then.
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2522 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 27th, 2008 06:51 pm |
|
NorthStar wrote:This is exactly how the Orthodox view the Canon as well. We DO accept the 4th and 5th century councils about the what is and is not canon of Scripture, but since the East never had anyone trying to throw out huge chunks of the Bible like during the Reformation, there never was seen a need to officially close the matter forever or dogmatically.
Yes, I thought this is what I had said: Yes, you do accept the councils; yes, you do accept the enumerations of the books of scripture which they published; but no, you do not accept this as the official closing of the canon. The Orthodox acceptance of the apocryphal books (some here, some there, depending on the Church) as “probably inspired” and used in the liturgy seems to go along with the last point above.
The western viewpoint, however, is that the enumeration of inspired books in the fourth century excluded those that were not included, thereby closing the canon. The Council of Trent merely said the same thing at the highest level of authority.
So for Catholics, the canon is closed since the fourth century, but the Orthodox see the list as inclusive but not exclusive, and of course were not involved in the Council of Trent. Right?
David
|
|
|
calatorul
Member
| Joined: | Tue Aug 26th, 2008 |
| Location: | Midlands, South Carolina |
| Posts: | 42 |
| First Name: | Joey | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Baptist |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 28th, 2008 11:49 am |
|
Well, when you talk about the Orthodox, there is also the Ethiopian and Oriental Canons that differ from those of Greek and Russian. For instance, the Ethiopian Orthodox include 1 Enoch (and others). I think they have the longest list of Books than any other. Also, the OSB excludes 4 Maccabees which is accepted as inspired by many Orthodox. Most Orthodox don't consider a rigid Canon of Scripture necessary.
At the heart of my inquiries is to understand how these books fit into the spiritual life of the Catholic. Not just these, but books such as the Protevangelion of James. It's non-canonical, yet from it we read of the Virgin Mary's parents and her service in the Temple.
Is it a case by case thing, or is their an official pronouncement or guideline on certain books that contribute to faith and Tradition, but are not Sacred Scripture?
____________________
"By the higher mystical ascent from matters that concern ourselves to that transcendent nature we gain a knowledge of the Word,... by observing in our own nature certain shadows and resemblances of His ineffable power." St. Gregory of Nyssa
|
|
|
calatorul
Member
| Joined: | Tue Aug 26th, 2008 |
| Location: | Midlands, South Carolina |
| Posts: | 42 |
| First Name: | Joey | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Baptist |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 28th, 2008 11:54 am |
|
David W. Emery wrote:
The link you supply shows exactly what I had in mind when I said above that there was often a good correlation between the manuscript traditions of some of the recently discovered papyri and the Septuagint. By the way, I don’t know if you looked, but the same website has an interesting timeline of Christian history full of factual tidbits. It’s well enough done that one cannot, with only a casual look-see, tell what the author’s personal persuasion is.
David
The timeline was neat. I noticed the anti-papal bias in it though.
Good information is good information. I've noticed that sometimes I find a good link containing excellent Biblical resources. Then, as I probe the site further, I'll find that it's authored by some "Israelite Identity" group, LDS, or other similar organizations.
____________________
"By the higher mystical ascent from matters that concern ourselves to that transcendent nature we gain a knowledge of the Word,... by observing in our own nature certain shadows and resemblances of His ineffable power." St. Gregory of Nyssa
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2522 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 28th, 2008 01:15 pm |
|
calatorul wrote:At the heart of my inquiries is to understand how these books fit into the spiritual life of the Catholic.
For the vast majority of Catholics, they don’t even show up on the radar. Officially in the Catholic Church, they are considered non-inspired but valuable ancient witnesses of what people actually thought and wrote in ancient times. Scholars sometimes study them; the average Catholic has never heard of them. Very occasionally one can find a curious or scholarly sort among the general populace who has actually read one or another of the more popular ones, such as the Protoevangelion of James.
We occasionally discuss the apocrypha on the forum because people bring them up. Otherwise they would not get much play.
Let us recall, too, that a lot of what is being bandied about these days as the “lost books of the bible” are really Gnostic works, not even Jewish or Christian. The secular bookstores are filled with them, confusing everybody and leading some astray.
The timeline was neat. I noticed the anti-papal bias in it though.
This was to be expected. I could see nowhere an indication that the website was anything other than Protestant. The timeline was still pretty well done and included many interesting facts.
I've noticed that sometimes I find a good link containing excellent Biblical resources. Then, as I probe the site further, I'll find that it's authored by some "Israelite Identity" group, LDS, or other similar organizations.
Some people are adept at looking like scholars, regardless of what is really going on inside their minds. Appearances, they say, are everything. 
David
|
|
|
calatorul
Member
| Joined: | Tue Aug 26th, 2008 |
| Location: | Midlands, South Carolina |
| Posts: | 42 |
| First Name: | Joey | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Baptist |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 28th, 2008 03:02 pm |
|
David W. Emery wrote: calatorul wrote:At the heart of my inquiries is to understand how these books fit into the spiritual life of the Catholic.
For the vast majority of Catholics, they don’t even show up on the radar. Officially in the Catholic Church, they are considered non-inspired but valuable ancient witnesses of what people actually thought and wrote in ancient times. Scholars sometimes study them; the average Catholic has never heard of them. Very occasionally one can find a curious or scholarly sort among the general populace who has actually read one or another of the more popular ones, such as the Protoevangelion of James.
We occasionally discuss the apocrypha on the forum because people bring them up. Otherwise they would not get much play.
Let us recall, too, that a lot of what is being bandied about these days as the “lost books of the bible” are really Gnostic works, not even Jewish or Christian. The secular bookstores are filled with them, confusing everybody and leading some astray.
I agree. I'm not trying to lump them all into one category like those secular and new age publishers, but I do find much in late Judean and early Christian writings that don't contradict doctrine but have contributed to or have been cited by Fathers as resources.
Some, of course, may be just as valuable as The Lord of the Rings, but are valuable nonetheless.
I have read some of those Gnostic books you speak of, such as the Gospel of Thomas; the inherent Gnosticism is plainly apparent (at least to me, anyway).
____________________
"By the higher mystical ascent from matters that concern ourselves to that transcendent nature we gain a knowledge of the Word,... by observing in our own nature certain shadows and resemblances of His ineffable power." St. Gregory of Nyssa
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2522 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 29th, 2008 01:05 pm |
|
I do find much in late Judean and early Christian writings that don't contradict doctrine but have contributed to or have been cited by Fathers as resources.
Right. There are good ones interspersed with the bad ones, and as I said, they serve as witnesses of the faith in the early centuries. The trick is knowing how to separate the wheat from the chaff. And for this, you need to know what the truth is by accepting the faith from a reliable source. But if you have to do your own interpreting of that source, you will “receive” little (cf. John 17:7–8; 1 Corinthians 2:13; 11:23ff; 15:1ff; Philippians 4:9; Galatians 1:9; 2 Corinthians 3:6; 11:4; Revelation 3:3), and it will do you little good.
David
|
|
|
calatorul
Member
| Joined: | Tue Aug 26th, 2008 |
| Location: | Midlands, South Carolina |
| Posts: | 42 |
| First Name: | Joey | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Baptist |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 29th, 2008 01:33 pm |
|
David W. Emery wrote: I do find much in late Judean and early Christian writings that don't contradict doctrine but have contributed to or have been cited by Fathers as resources.
Right. There are good ones interspersed with the bad ones, and as I said, they serve as witnesses of the faith in the early centuries. The trick is knowing how to separate the wheat from the chaff. And for this, you need to know what the truth is by accepting the faith from a reliable source. But if you have to do your own interpreting of that source, you will “receive” little (cf. John 17:7–8; 1 Corinthians 2:13; 11:23ff; 15:1ff; Philippians 4:9; Galatians 1:9; 2 Corinthians 3:6; 11:4; Revelation 3:3), and it will do you little good.
David
Got it. It's like St. Jude referencing the apocryphal book of Enoch or Pope Leo XIII citing 3 Esdras (1 Esdras in KJV & NRSV). They weren't making these canonical, but pointing to them to reinforce a certain truth.
By the way, I looked at some the above posts. I hope I wasn't coming across like I was arguing. I'm only asking questions whether for my benefit or for the benefit of the reader.
Unlike many others, Catholic apologists tend to have an answer for just about everything. Not only that, but they back it up with both facts and authority. Just an observation.
____________________
"By the higher mystical ascent from matters that concern ourselves to that transcendent nature we gain a knowledge of the Word,... by observing in our own nature certain shadows and resemblances of His ineffable power." St. Gregory of Nyssa
|
|
|
calatorul
Member
| Joined: | Tue Aug 26th, 2008 |
| Location: | Midlands, South Carolina |
| Posts: | 42 |
| First Name: | Joey | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Baptist |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 29th, 2008 01:40 pm |
|
CajunRick wrote: calatorul wrote: I suppose a good starting place to clarify my questions would be, What was the purpose of "closed Canon of Scripture"? Wasn't it the Council of Trent that declared that? And, if there were no Protestant Reformation and the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, would it be necessary?
It's important to note the difference between "doctrine" and "dogma".
In essence, dogma is doctrine that has been formally declared. The canon of scripture was doctrine for a thousand years before Trent declared it dogma. As David pointed out, there was no reason for a dogmatic pronouncement until the Protestant revolt and the attempt to eliminate certain books of both the Old and New Testament.
Catholics United for the Faith have a Faith Fact on the canon of scripture, which letters indicate Pope St. Innocent, St. Jerome and St. Augustine accepted in the early fifth century.
So in fact the matter was settled by the fifth century, but there was no reason for a formal pronouncement until the Protestant challenge, as it was universally accepted until then.
Thanks, and thanks for the link.
____________________
"By the higher mystical ascent from matters that concern ourselves to that transcendent nature we gain a knowledge of the Word,... by observing in our own nature certain shadows and resemblances of His ineffable power." St. Gregory of Nyssa
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2522 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 29th, 2008 07:15 pm |
|
I hope I wasn't coming across like I was arguing.
By no means. It was really just a vocabulary lesson for both of us as we made sure we understood each other. No real disagreements.
David
|
|
|
Current time is 08:46 am | |
|
|
|
|
|
