Catholics, plz answer these objections to the deuterocanonical books

[rwillenborg]

From page 1552 of the ‘Archeological Study Bible’, It’s an NIV.
Some scholars argue that the Jewish cancon of Alexandria, Egypt included Apocryphal books. However, Philo of Alexandria ( c. 20 bc - ad 50) never alluded to any of them as scripture and many early church fathers (origen, athanasius, chrystom, and jerome) were either openly uncomfortable treating them as canonical or only rarely quoted them. The earliest manuscripts of teh Seuptuagint (4th-5th centures) included some of the Apocryphal books, probably as supplementary religious literature, but the list does not correspond to the 14 apocryphal books designated as such at the council of Trent in 1546.

Any insight you have on these would be very helpful. Also, any resources, books or articles or the such, would be very helpful, too. I’m off to google deuteros here on catholic.com, but if you know of any other place, or book, that would help, too!! Much appreciated and everyone have a blessed Labor Day weekend!

 

[Scoobyshme]

From page 1552 of the ‘Archeological Study Bible’, It’s an NIV.
Some scholars argue that the Jewish cancon of Alexandria, Egypt included Apocryphal books. However, Philo of Alexandria ( c. 20 bc - ad 50) never alluded to any of them as scripture and many early church fathers (origen, athanasius, chrystom, and jerome) were either openly uncomfortable treating them as canonical or only rarely quoted them. The earliest manuscripts of teh Seuptuagint (4th-5th centures) included some of the Apocryphal books, probably as supplementary religious literature, but the list does not correspond to the 14 apocryphal books designated as such at the council of Trent in 1546.

Any insight you have on these would be very helpful. Also, any resources, books or articles or the such, would be very helpful, too. I’m off to google deuteros here on catholic.com, but if you know of any other place, or book, that would help, too!! Much appreciated and everyone have a blessed Labor Day weekend!

Scholars have also found that approximately 80% of the references to the Old Testament in the New Testament come from the Septuagint version of the Old Testament (the ones with the extra 7 books).

The Jews also didn’t codify their Old Testament books until the late first, early second century, and part of their motivation for excluding the Septuagint was that the early Christians were using it to convert Jews to Christianity.

Only in the early 1500’s (1517?) did Martin Luther replace the Septuagint version of the Old Testament in the Bible with the ones the Jews (the ones who had rejected Jesus) decided on when they codified the Bible. And he did so on his own “authority.” He had no authority to do this.

Here’s a good video on Origin of the Bible that you can view (for free, of course):

alabamacatholicresources.com/Bible.html

This explains a lot of what I’m saying.

 

[BrianH]

How did you establish that the LXX had the seven books at the time of Christ? I thought no one was sure. No copies exist until 300 years later.
And those copies have different books. So it does not make much sense that they had the seven books, then got rid of some of them, and then got them back?

 

[Tietjen]

How did you establish that the LXX had the seven books at the time of Christ? I thought no one was sure. No copies exist until 300 years later.
And those copies have different books. So it does not make much sense that they had the seven books, then got rid of some of them, and then got them back?

Well, the Dead Sea Scrolls, which were written between 250 BC and 70 AD included the deuterocanonical books (Google Dead Sea Scrolls).

The city of Alexandria in Egypt possessed the greatest library of the ancient world and during the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285-246 BC), a translation of the entire Hebrew Bible into Greek was begun by 70 or 72 Jewish scholars (6 from each of the 12 tribes). The Septuagint is Latin for 70 (this is why the Septuagint is often referred to as LXX). Greek was the common language at the time and Hebrew was dying out and being replaced by Aramaic. This is further evident by the fact that we know that the Jews at the time of Christ were quiet familiar with the Aramaic language as well as the Greek. The Hebrew canon was established by Jewish rabbis at Jamnia Palestine in about the year 100 AD. The Jews at Jamnia rejected the seven books from the Hebrew canon (found in the LXX) chiefly on the grounds that they could not find any Hebrew versions of these books which the LXX supposedly translated into Greek. These Rabbis used 4 criteria to determining which books would be included in their new canon:

1. It had to be written in Hebrew
2. It had to conform with the Torah
3. It had to be older than the time of Ezra (400 BC)
4. It had to have been written in Palestine

During the time that these Rabbis were trying to compile their new canon, the relatively new cult of Christianity was growing among the Jews and Gentiles alike. The majority of these upstarts continued to use the Greek translation (the LXX) and this caused great concern amongst the Rabbis who viewed this new religion as a threat to Judaism. A separation needed to take place between the ancient Jewish religion and Christianity, and this new canon was a good place to take a stand.

Here are some others facts concerning the LXX that Protestants never seem to like to bring up:

1. Martin Luther actually included the 7 books in his first German translation.
2. The first King James Version (1611) included them as well.
3. The first Bible ever printed, the Guttenberg Bible (printed a century BEFORE the council of Trent) included them.
4. Luther in his writings on the New Testament, noted that the books of Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation were inferior to the rest, and they followed “the certain, main books of the New Testament.” In 1519, this same attitude fueled his debate against Johannes Eck on the topic of purgatory. Luther undermined Eck’s proof text of 2 Maccabees 12 by devaluing the deuterocanonical books as a whole. He argued that the New Testament authors had never quoted from the seven books, so they were in a different class than the rest of the Bible (never mind the fact that eight other Old Testament books such as the Song of Songs were also not quoted in the New Testament).
5. These seven books were included in almost every Bible until the Edinburgh Committee of the British Foreign Bible Society excised them in 1825. Until then, they had been included at least in an appendix of Protestant Bibles. It is historically demonstrable that Catholics did not add the books, Protestants took them out.

 

[rcjones]

Can anyone show sensus plenior in them? I am finding it in all the other books, and admittedly my prejudice may limit my ability to see it there. But I would accept them as scripture if they contain consistent sensus plenior with the rest of the cannon.

 

[Tietjen]

From page 1552 of the ‘Archeological Study Bible’, It’s an NIV.
Some scholars argue that the Jewish cancon of Alexandria, Egypt included Apocryphal books. However, Philo of Alexandria ( c. 20 bc - ad 50) never alluded to any of them as scripture and many early church fathers (origen, athanasius, chrystom, and jerome) were either openly uncomfortable treating them as canonical or only rarely quoted them. The earliest manuscripts of teh Seuptuagint (4th-5th centures) included some of the Apocryphal books, probably as supplementary religious literature, but the list does not correspond to the 14 apocryphal books designated as such at the council of Trent in 1546.

I would suggest that the information you cited above is from a Protestant source as the use of the term “Apocrypha” in Greek means “Hidden away” or “questionable authenticity.” Further, it is absolutely true that some of the Early Church Fathers were “uncomfortable” treating the 7 books in question as canonical. However, they recognized the Church’s authority on the matter and relented to the point that even Jerome included them in the Vulgate. As for the earliest manuscripts of the Septuagint being from the 4th or 5th century AD; that is simply not the case. It has been established and can easily verified that the Dead Sea Scroll (written between 250-70 BC) also contained the deuterocanonical books.

 

[BrianH]

Well, the Dead Sea Scrolls, which were written between 250 BC and 70 AD included the deuterocanonical books (Google Dead Sea Scrolls).

Three of the seven were included along with 900 other books/scrolls

city of Alexandria in Egypt possessed the greatest library of the ancient world and during the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285-246 BC), a translation of the entire Hebrew Bible into Greek was begun by 70 or 72 Jewish scholars (6 from each of the 12 tribes). The Septuagint is Latin for 70 (this is why the Septuagint is often referred to as LXX). Greek was the common language at the time and Hebrew was dying out and being replaced by Aramaic. This is further evident by the fact that we know that the Jews at the time of Christ were quiet familiar with the Aramaic language as well as the Greek.

Sure. Although the legendary aspects of this legend make the facts quite difficult.

The Hebrew canon was established by Jewish rabbis at Jamnia Palestine in about the year 100 AD. The Jews at Jamnia rejected the seven books from the Hebrew canon (found in the LXX) chiefly

No.

1. Although Christian authors seem to think in terms of a formal council at Jabneh, there was no such thing. There was a school for studying the Law at Jabneh, and the rabbis there exercised legal functions in the Jewish community.

1. Not only was there no formal council, there is no evidence that any list of books was drawn up at Jabneh.

1. A specific discussion of acceptance at Jabneh is attested only for the books of Ecclesiastes and the Song of Solomon. Even so, arguments regarding these books persisted in Judaism centuries after the Jabneh period. There were also subsequent debates about Esther.

1. We know of no books that were excluded at Jabneh. In fact, Sirach, which was read and copied by Jews after the Jabneh period, did not eventually become part of the standard Hebrew Bible (cf. Raymond Edward Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, and Roland Edmund Murphy, The Jerome Biblical Commentary [Prentice-Hall, 1996, c. 1968], vol. 2, 522).

catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0409fea4.asp

Yes, the other things you mentioned are largely true, what is not is not enough to squable about.

So I will ask again, how do you know they were in the Bible at the time of Christ? A lot of people think that but we do not know that. What we do know is that the earliest copies of the LXX contained different books. So if they were part of the LXX at the time of Christ, they were taken out 300 years later and then put back in? The witness of the Ante-Nicene church is that different lists of books were considered canonical in regards to the OT. Some Ante-Nicene fathers accepted some that others reject and once again we cannot say with any degree of certainity that they were in the “Bibles” of the earliest church

 

[BrianH]

I would suggest that the information you cited above is from a Protestant source as the use of the term “Apocrypha” in Greek means “Hidden away” or “questionable authenticity.” Further, it is absolutely true that some of the Early Church Fathers were “uncomfortable” treating the 7 books in question as canonical. However, they recogized the Church’s authority on the matter and relented to the point that even Jerome included them in the Vulgate. As for the earliest manuscripts of the Septuagint being from the 4th or 5th century AD; that is simply not the case. It has been established and can easily verified that the Dead Sea Scroll (written between 250-70 BC) also contained the deuterocanonical books.

The scrolls found had 800 or 900 different books. Only three of the seven Deuterocanonical books were in them.
Only one of them was in Greek. The other two were in Hebrew. You cannot have a Hebrew LXX

 

[Tietjen]

The scrolls found had 800 or 900 different books. Only three of the seven Deuterocanonical books were in them.
Only one of them was in Greek. The other two were in Hebrew. You cannot have a Hebrew LXX

It was not my intention to suggest that the Dead Sea Scrolls were in fact a copy of the LXX. The fact is that MANY books were found near the ancient settlement of Khirbet Qumran. The fact that ANY of the deuterocanonical books were included in these finds proves that they existed prior to the OP’s commentary that they didn’t exist until the 4th or 5th century AD.

 

[BrianH]

It was not my intention to suggest that the Dead Sea Scrolls were in fact a copy of the LXX. The fact is that MANY books were found near the ancient settlement of Khirbet Qumran. The fact that ANY of the deuterocanonical books were included in these finds proves that they existed prior to the OP’s commentary that they didn’t exist until the 4th or 5th century AD.

The OP’s contention would be a collection of OT books written in Greek as some form of codex occured in the 4th and 5th century. Not that individual copies of them in Greek did not exist.

 

[mark_a]

Well, the Dead Sea Scrolls, which were written between 250 BC and 70 AD included the deuterocanonical books (Google Dead Sea Scrolls).

The city of Alexandria in Egypt possessed the greatest library of the ancient world and during the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285-246 BC), a translation of the entire Hebrew Bible into Greek was begun by 70 or 72 Jewish scholars (6 from each of the 12 tribes). The Septuagint is Latin for 70 (this is why the Septuagint is often referred to as LXX). Greek was the common language at the time and Hebrew was dying out and being replaced by Aramaic. This is further evident by the fact that we know that the Jews at the time of Christ were quiet familiar with the Aramaic language as well as the Greek. The Hebrew canon was established by Jewish rabbis at Jamnia Palestine in about the year 100 AD. The Jews at Jamnia rejected the seven books from the Hebrew canon (found in the LXX) chiefly on the grounds that they could not find any Hebrew versions of these books which the LXX supposedly translated into Greek. These Rabbis used 4 criteria to determining which books would be included in their new canon:

1. It had to be written in Hebrew
2. It had to conform with the Torah
3. It had to be older than the time of Ezra (400 BC)
4. It had to have been written in Palestine

During the time that these Rabbis were trying to compile their new canon, the relatively new cult of Christianity was growing among the Jews and Gentiles alike. The majority of these upstarts continued to use the Greek translation (the LXX) and this caused great concern amongst the Rabbis who viewed this new religion as a threat to Judaism. A separation needed to take place between the ancient Jewish religion and Christianity, and this new canon was a good place to take a stand.

Here are some others facts concerning the LXX that Protestants never seem to like to bring up:

1. Martin Luther actually included the 7 books in his first German translation.
2. The first King James Version (1611) included them as well.
3. The first Bible ever printed, the Guttenberg Bible (printed a century BEFORE the council of Trent) included them.
4. Luther in his writings on the New Testament, noted that the books of Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation were inferior to the rest, and they followed “the certain, main books of the New Testament.” In 1519, this same attitude fueled his debate against Johannes Eck on the topic of purgatory. Luther undermined Eck’s proof text of 2 Maccabees 12 by devaluing the deuterocanonical books as a whole. He argued that the New Testament authors had never quoted from the seven books, so they were in a different class than the rest of the Bible (never mind the fact that eight other Old Testament books such as the Song of Songs were also not quoted in the New Testament).
5. These seven books were included in almost every Bible until the Edinburgh Committee of the British Foreign Bible Society excised them in 1825. Until then, they had been included at least in an appendix of Protestant Bibles. It is historically demonstrable that Catholics did not add the books, Protestants took them out.

Thank you for this thoughtful post. I even bookmarked it to my “deutero’s” folder!