Are there any Eastern Rite Catholic churches which employ the Septuagint as their OT?

[Marina14]

Being that the Oxford Bible with “Apocrypha” is employs either the RSV or the NRSV (depending on the edition), it seems better to me to employ the RSV-CE instead. Some differences are very minor, e.g. Luke 1:28 has “full of grace”, but I consider it worth while.

Relevant to this conversation, however, the Oxford Bible with “Apocrypha” rips out the portions of Esther not found in the Masoretic Text and puts them in the “Apocrypha” section. The RSV-CE, however, keeps the structure of Esther that the Church used in the earliest times. In other words, it follows the order of the Septuagint. Those portions that are found in the Masoretic Text are translated from that source, but interspersed therein are the portions found in Septuagint but not in the Masoretic Text.

The NRSV w/Apocrypha has Esther in it twice - first from the Hebrew Translation and then in the “Apocrypha” section from the Greek Translation - which is the most complete version of it. This is the same with the Oxford Bible & the same with the Harper Collins Study Bible.

With any Catholic Edition you are then missing entire books of the O.T.! I can’t imagine someone even considering it.
Some of what you’ll miss is:
Susanna
Bel & the Dragon
3 & 4th Macc
etc.
These books are & have been a part of Sacred Scripture since before the time of Christ and were in the Scriptures that He, Himself, read.

Why do you want to do away with them or read a Scripture Translation which has done away with them?

Makes no sense. Might as well become a Protestant and throw out some a few more books while your at it! Makes no sense.

 

[lak611]

With any Catholic Edition you are then missing entire books of the O.T.! I can’t imagine someone even considering it.
Some of what you’ll miss is:
Susanna
Bel & the Dragon

Susana and Bel & the Dragon are part of the Book of Daniel in the Catholic Bibles. The Song of the Three Young Men is also in the Book of Daniel in the Catholic Bibles. It is in the Apocrypha in Protestant Bibles.

1 & 2 Esdras, 3 & 4 Maccabees, Psalm 151 and Prayer of Manasseh are missing from Catholic Bibles.

 

[NewAbdalMaseeh]

The NRSV w/Apocrypha has Esther in it twice - first from the Hebrew Translation and then in the “Apocrypha” section from the Greek Translation - which is the most complete version of it. This is the same with the Oxford Bible & the same with the Harper Collins Study Bible.

What they have is the same thing the 1611 KJV had: Esther ripped into pieces, where the Masoretic Text version is found in the Old Testament, and then those portions which are in the Septuagint but are not in the Masoretic Text thrown into the “Apocrypha” section. Therefore, with such Bibles, if you want to read Esther as the ancient Christians did, you have to keep switching back and forth, while with the RSV-CE the two portions are placed together in a single book (as they are in the Septuagint!).

With any Catholic Edition you are then missing entire books of the O.T.! I can’t imagine someone even considering it.
Some of what you’ll miss is:
Susanna
Bel & the Dragon
3 & 4th Macc
etc.
These books are & have been a part of Sacred Scripture since before the time of Christ and were in the Scriptures that He, Himself, read. Why do you want to do away with them or read a Scripture Translation which has done away with them? Makes no sense. Might as well become a Protestant and throw out some a few more books while your at it! Makes no sense.

I was going to jump on your erroneous claims about Susana and Bel and the Dragon (and I am surprised you didn’t include the Letter of Jeremy, which also would have been erroneous), but Lak already corrected you. The problem is that those are not individual books. Rather Bibles with an “Apocrypha” section ripped those texts out of already existing wholes and made them separate books (again, because they are not part of the Masoretic Text). Since you wish to make an appeal to the beliefs of the ancient Church, do you consider Susana part of Daniel or not?

Now, I am interested by the implications of your not-so-veiled disdain for the Roman Catholic canon vis a vis the Orthodox canon. So I’d like to ask you, or anyone else here, what exactly is the Orthodox canon? Or has it not been codified yet? And how do the Orthodox know? Do they appeal to a certain pre-schism council? A certain post-schism council? I, personally, do not know the answers to these questions (though, if I am not mistaken, the Greek Orthodox canon differs from the Russian Orthodox canon in that the latter includes 2 Esdras, AKA IV Ezra, Ezra Apocalypse, et cetera, which did not appear in the Septuagint).

 

[lak611]

What they have is the same thing the 1611 KJV had

Oddly enough, the KJV Apocrypha is missing Psalm 151 and 3 & 4 Maccabees. Those books are in the RSV Apocrypha.

 

[NewAbdalMaseeh]

Sorry for the misunderstanding (i.e. my imprecise language). I meant with regard to specifically the book of Esther. In other words, the 1611 KJV and the Oxford Bible have the single book of Esther ripped into two parts, not two different versions of Esther.

By the way, in the non-Catholic forum I started a thread asking about the Orthodox canon:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=2991032#post2991032

 

[lak611]

Sorry for the misunderstanding (i.e. my imprecise language). I meant with regard to specifically the book of Esther. In other words, the 1611 KJV and the Oxford Bible have the single book of Esther ripped into two parts, not two different versions of Esther.

By the way, in the non-Catholic forum I started a thread asking about the Orthodox canon:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=2991032#post2991032

Yes, I do understand what you are saying. I own a lot of Bibles, so I am familiar with Esther.

I did join the thread about the Orthodox canon, since I am interested in that as well.

 

[lak611]

Sorry for the misunderstanding (i.e. my imprecise language). I meant with regard to specifically the book of Esther. In other words, the 1611 KJV and the Oxford Bible have the single book of Esther ripped into two parts, not two different versions of Esther.

By the way, in the non-Catholic forum I started a thread asking about the Orthodox canon:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=2991032#post2991032

I started another thread found here about the differences in the Protestant Apocrypha.

 

[Marina14]

Sorry for the misunderstanding (i.e. my imprecise language). I meant with regard to specifically the book of Esther. In other words, the 1611 KJV and the Oxford Bible have the single book of Esther ripped into two parts, not two different versions of Esther.

By the way, in the non-Catholic forum I started a thread asking about the Orthodox canon:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=2991032#post2991032

I’ve read both the English Translation of Esther from both the Hebrew and the Greek - the Greek in the NRSV & the actual Greek Septiugent & it is not missing anything. You don’t have to “piece” anything together. It’s the Hebrew Esther that is missing whole sections of the original Greek Esther.

My distain is not for Catholics - it’s for anyone who pulls books out of Sacred Scripture!

The OT Canon in the Eastern Churches (both Catholic & Orthodox) has been the Greek Septiugent. Neither the Eastern Catholics nor the Eastern Orthodox have translated it into English - although through Concilliar Press you can next year buy an Original Orthodox English Translation of the Septiugent. My understanding is that they are currently taking “pre-orders” I think it’s $65. for a Bonded Leather under the “pre-order”.

 

[Woodstock]

I don’t understand why a Bible translation would determine which Church you convert to.

The Bible was made by the Church for the Church, not the other way around. Apostles, scholars and theologians who dedicated their lives to studying it have handed it down to us. Why would you determine your Church based on your personal preferences on the Bible? It seems to me to be putting the cart before the horse.

 

[NewAbdalMaseeh]

First to Marina, let me say that your post has given me pause. I was 100% certain that the Ofxford, RSV, and NRSV apocryphas had Esther the same way the 1611 KJV apocrypha did: not as a translation as the entire Greek text, but rather only those portions of the Greek text which do not have a counterpart in the Masoretic Text (e.g. the dream of Mordechai, Haman’s letter, et cetera). So, to be sure, I am going to check these texts, and report back.

Now, let me get to what Woodstock wrote:

I don’t understand why a Bible translation would determine which Church you convert to. The Bible was made by the Church for the Church, not the other way around. Apostles, scholars and theologians who dedicated their lives to studying it have handed it down to us. Why would you determine your Church based on your personal preferences on the Bible? It seems to me to be putting the cart before the horse.

This is a fair objection. However, it is precisely the issue of the Bible that pushed me towards Catholicism/Orthodoxy in the first place. For example, one of several reasons I reject Protestantism is their use of a truncated canon (an example of the Bible being employed by a given “church” being an issue on which I judge that “church”).

As for the Bible which was handed down, which one was that? The one with an OT based on the Masoretic Text? Or the one with an OT based on the Septuagint? Though these texts are similar, they are not identical. Worse, the Masoretic Text is not the text(s) employed by the Apostles (as was shown in the post linked to at the start of this thread).

 

[Woodstock]

This is a fair objection. However, it is precisely the issue of the Bible that pushed me towards Catholicism/Orthodoxy in the first place. For example, one of several reasons I reject Protestantism is their use of a truncated canon (an example of the Bible being employed by a given “church” being an issue on which I judge that “church”).

As for the Bible which was handed down, which one was that? The one with an OT based on the Masoretic Text? Or the one with an OT based on the Septuagint? Though these texts are similar, they are not identical. Worse, the Masoretic Text is not the text(s) employed by the Apostles (as was shown in the post linked to at the start of this thread).

I can understand that line of reasoning. The Bible is what pointed you to faith in Christ so you have respect and a sense of importance for it in your faith life.

My own is that the Bible was created by the Church for the Church to help lead us best to God, so you find which Church has the authority and fullness of faith and you’ll know that it has acted in accordance with the will of the God regarding the scriptures.

The scriptures are only a small part of the tradition passed down to us. The oral tradition is much larger and helps us to understand and interpret those scriptures. The fullness of the faith has been handed down in oral *and *written tradition.

 

[NewAbdalMaseeh]

Woodstock, we are mostly in agreement. It is precisely my study of the Bible that increased my understanding of Church authority, and how that is the true center of everything. That is why I am investigating Orthodoxy and Catholicism above all else.

In fact, my chief argument of recent has been that, due to differences between the Masoretic Text and OT quotes in the NT, we can say the Masoretic Text is not exactly the same text as those which the Apostles employed. Perhaps the same argument could be heaped on the Septuagint. Furthermore, it seems the canon is somewhat fluid in Orthodoxy (i.e. Greeks and Russians have a slightly different canon), and the same may be true for Catholicism as well. All this may point to the Church even more (i.e. Christianity was always church-centered, not bible-centered, hence the reason a mildly-fluid or undefined canon was never a problem).

I continue to investigate!

 

[NewAbdalMaseeh]

I’ve read both the English Translation of Esther from both the Hebrew and the Greek - the Greek in the NRSV & the actual Greek Septiugent & it is not missing anything. You don’t have to “piece” anything together.

Okay, I checked, and, indeed, much to my surprise, the NRSV Apocrypha is not like the KJV Apocrypha when it comes to Esther. You were right. It has the entirety of Greek Esther, and then in the OT section they have Masoretic Esther.