Blast The Canon

[BrianH]

I like that…I suppose we should think about what Jesus did use. He really upset lots of Jews when he preached…ya gotta wonder. Now if he used the Septuagint that might have inflamed the Jews even more becuase the Jews of the Diaspora used the Septuagint…

There is a distinction between Jews of the diaspora and Palestinian Jews. Palestinian Jews rejected the DB, but the Septuagint, which is the Greek version of the OT composed in the 2nd-3rd century B.C. at Alexandria, Egypt by 70 or 72 Jewish scribes, was used by non-Palestinian Jews. It is a well known fact that the Septuagint (LXX) was both the Bible of the diaspora Jews and the Bible of all the early Christians. Further, it’s also a fact that the LXX contained the DB.

The origins of the LXX are complex. I do not believe most scholars give a lot of credence to the popular myth of a specfic group of scholars translating from Hebrew to Greek at a specific time. It is a popular myth but any number of scholars recognize the LXX as something that was in flux. Take for example the fact that Eastern Orthodox and Catholicism contain different books in their Old Testament canon.
It is also not a fact that the LXX at the time of Christ contained the Deuterocanonical books. There are no existing lists or copies from this time to prove or disprove the exact contents.
Even the earliest copies of the LXX used by Christians contained different books.
None of this really matters because Catholicism uses early Christian councils and regional synods to support their canon. What the canon was or was not in 30 AD is not why the earliest Christians did or did not support the Deuterocanonical books as part of the canon.
We talked about this a few years ago.
Here is the link
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=395145&page=3

 

[Publisher]

I doubt Jesus being a Palestinian/Jerusalem Temple Jew would have used the LXX…but rather the Hebrew.

Those writeres of the NT used the LXX as they were of the DIaspora.

 

[BrianH]

I agree Publisher. I will also add that I do not think you can prove or disprove the exact contents of a “Hebrew canon” either at this time. Esther etc

 

[Publisher]

I agree Publisher. I will also add that I do not think you can prove or disprove the exact contents of a “Hebrew canon” either at this time. Esther etc

No…I don’t think we have any real idea what the Hebrew canon was at the time of Christ…I would guess it woud be closer to the Hebrew canon we have today than the LXX…the additions ot Esther and Daniel, the story of Tobit, and the Wisdom books may have been used…but to claim they were “canon” I find doubtful…I believe the state of the canon was much like among the Orthodox east…different geographical locations had different books they used…sometime the DC’s were among the books used…sometimes not.

I always find the assertion Catholics make that Protestants “took books out” of the canon to be not quite truthful…Trent was a reaction against the Reformation to fix the “canon”…much like the Hebrew canon was to a great extent a reaction against the emerging Christian sect among the Jews.

 

[Pwrlftr]

I like that…I suppose we should think about what Jesus did use. He really upset lots of Jews when he preached…ya gotta wonder. Now if he used the Septuagint that might have inflamed the Jews even more becuase the Jews of the Diaspora used the Septuagint…

There is a distinction between Jews of the diaspora and Palestinian Jews. Palestinian Jews rejected the DB, but the Septuagint, which is the Greek version of the OT composed in the 2nd-3rd century B.C. at Alexandria, Egypt by 70 or 72 Jewish scribes, was used by non-Palestinian Jews. It is a well known fact that the Septuagint (LXX) was both the Bible of the diaspora Jews and the Bible of all the early Christians. Further, it’s also a fact that the LXX contained the DB.

Coptic,

While the LXX was in use at the time of Christ and before it’s not possible to know what books might have been included within the LXX of that time or even how many different variations/versions of the LXX there were. Further, we can know for certain the canonical status of the books within the LXX.

We do have several manuscripts available to us but they differ as to their content and are all Christian manuscripts that date only as far back as the 4th century A.D. Several books which both Catholics and Protestants reject are found in the manuscripts we do have such as 3rd and 4th Macc.

Anyway, I am not sure we can defend the canonocity of the deutero’s very effectively via the LXX.

 

[CopticChristian]

The origins of the LXX are complex. I do not believe most scholars give a lot of credence to the popular myth of a specfic group of scholars translating from Hebrew to Greek at a specific time. It is a popular myth but any number of scholars recognize the LXX as something that was in flux. Take for example the fact that Eastern Orthodox and Catholicism contain different books in their Old Testament canon.
It is also not a fact that the LXX at the time of Christ contained the Deuterocanonical books. There are no existing lists or copies from this time to prove or disprove the exact contents.
Even the earliest copies of the LXX used by Christians contained different books.
None of this really matters because Catholicism uses early Christian councils and regional synods to support their canon. What the canon was or was not in 30 AD is not why the earliest Christians did or did not support the Deuterocanonical books as part of the canon.
We talked about this a few years ago.
Here is the link
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=395145&page=3

thank you I will review it.

 

[CopticChristian]

No…I don’t think we have any real idea what the Hebrew canon was at the time of Christ…I would guess it woud be closer to the Hebrew canon we have today than the LXX…the additions ot Esther and Daniel, the story of Tobit, and the Wisdom books may have been used…but to claim they were “canon” I find doubtful…I believe the state of the canon was much like among the Orthodox east…different geographical locations had different books they used…sometime the DC’s were among the books used…sometimes not.

 

[Pwrlftr]

Publisher;8501256:

Riddle me this…

Prior to the 20th century, all English Bibles since Tyndale’s first New Testament (1526) were based on the Textus Receptus. This includes: Miles Coverdale’s Bible (1535), Matthew’s Bible (1500-1555), The Great Bible (1539), The Geneva Version (1560), The Bishops’ Bible (1568), and the King James Version (1611). This bible and the ones that followed contained the deuterocanonicals.

1384 Wycliffe Bible
1534 Luther’s German Bible
1537 The Cloverdale Bible
1539 The Taverner Bible
1541 The “Great” or “Cromwell’s” Bible
1551 The “Tyndale/Matthews” Bible
1560 The Geneva Bible
1568 The Bishop’s Bible

Council Trent 1545-1563

King James 1611

The deuterocanonicals were part of the English Bible and were removed by Protestants. Do you still believe that it is an assertion?

In 1826, the British and Foreign Bible Society decided that no BFBS funds were to pay for printing any Apocryphal books anywhere. They were removed because of the cost of pritning and that is why Protestants do not have them.

But they were never included as canonoical scripture in the first place in most if not all the Bibles you mention. You could have added the KJV too but it’s not that the Protestants eventually removed the deutero’s it’s that the outright rejected them from pretty much the beginning.

 

[CopticChristian]

CopticChristian;8501610:

But they were never included as canonoical scripture in the first place in most if not all the Bibles you mention. You could have added the KJV too

but it’s not that the Protestants eventually removed the deutero’s it’s that the outright rejected them from pretty much the beginning.

I did. My answer was to Publisher as to who added or removed not canonicity. They were apocryphal/hidden. They were read and can be seen in the original King James if I can find the link. I found it. If you go through the days, you will see that the DB were used in service.

sceti.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?textID=kjbible&PagePosition=1

 

[Pwrlftr]

Pwrlftr;8501631:

I did. My answer was to Publisher as to who added or removed not canonicity. They were apocryphal/hidden. They were read and can be seen in the original King James if I can find the link. I found it. If you go through the days, you will see that the DB were used in service.

sceti.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?textID=kjbible&PagePosition=1

You are right, the deutero’s were included in the KJV but they weren’t there as canonical scripture.

I’m not sure what you mean by “the days”. I am not aware that the Protestants have or had anything similar to the Liturgy of the Hours.

 

[CopticChristian]

CopticChristian;8501697:

You are right, the deutero’s were included in the KJV but they weren’t there as canonical scripture.

I’m not sure what you mean by “the days”. I am not aware that the Protestants have or had anything similar to the Liturgy of the Hours.

Check each day for the prayers and you will see that the deuterocanonicals were used for prayers on a given day, for example.

Ecclesiastes/Sirach

sceti.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=kjbible&PagePosition=22

Baruch

sceti.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=kjbible&PagePosition=27

Check this page as you will see honoring Mary…

sceti.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=kjbible&PagePosition=33

 

[BrianH]

Coptic,

While the LXX was in use at the time of Christ and before it’s not possible to know what books might have been included within the LXX of that time or even how many different variations/versions of the LXX there were. Further, we can know for certain the canonical status of the books within the LXX.

We do have several manuscripts available to us but they differ as to their content and are all Christian manuscripts that date only as far back as the 4th century A.D. Several books which both Catholics and Protestants reject are found in the manuscripts we do have such as 3rd and 4th Macc.

Anyway, I am not sure we can defend the canonocity of the deutero’s very effectively via the LXX.

Excellent.
And to address your last point, you do not need to go that route anyway. It should be simple for a Catholic in my opinion. The earliest regional synods or councils of the 4th and 5th centuries that listed the NT canon included the Deuterocanonicals.

 

[CopticChristian]

Excellent.
And to address your last point, you do not need to go that route anyway. It should be simple for a Catholic in my opinion. The earliest regional synods or councils of the 4th and 5th centuries that listed the NT canon included the Deuterocanonicals.

Here is a question. If the DB were between the pages of the Holy Bible, God’s Word, of the English translations, what were they doing there…just taking up space?

 

[BrianH]

Here is a question. If the DB were between the pages of the Holy Bible, God’s Word, of the English translations, what were they doing there…just taking up space?

I am at a loss. Is this a serious question directed at me or just a rhetorical question? I have not been around much lately and I am not familiar with your posting style.

 

[CopticChristian]

I am at a loss. Is this a serious question directed at me or just a rhetorical question? I have not been around much lately and I am not familiar with your posting style.

Anyone.

 

[Pwrlftr]

Excellent.
And to address your last point, you do not need to go that route anyway. It should be simple for a Catholic in my opinion. The earliest regional synods or councils of the 4th and 5th centuries that listed the NT canon included the Deuterocanonicals.

I agree with you completely. I think way too much is made of the LXX when trying to defend the deutero’s. We just don’t know enough about the LXX at the time of Christ or earlier to make definitive statements as to what books were included or what the canonical status of those books was believed to be.

Also, I agree that there is no reason to defend the canonocity of the deutero’s based on the LXX since we have the testimony of the early councils…or at least that’s my opinion.

 

[Pwrlftr]

Pwrlftr;8501722:

Check each day for the prayers and you will see that the deuterocanonicals were used for prayers on a given day, for example.

Ecclesiastes/Sirach

sceti.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=kjbible&PagePosition=22

Baruch

sceti.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=kjbible&PagePosition=27

Check this page as you will see honoring Mary…

sceti.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=kjbible&PagePosition=33

Thanks. I will take a look at the links.