Difference in Catholic/protestant bibles?

[Curious_Hobbit]

I’ll give a summary of my vague understanding of the difference. Please tell me if I am wrong and elaborate.

The Septuagint was the bible of the “Jews of Disporosa” (Jews dispersed in other lands) and it was written in Greek. Jews didn’t have a closed canon at the time. Since most of the early Christians spoke Greek, they adopted the Septuagint and used it in liturgy etc. In the first century A.D., a few more books were found in the Greek septuagint then were in the Hebrew bible and these were the Deuterocanonicals. Some Jews used the setpuagint and others used the Hebrew bible, depending on their location. In the late 2nd century to early 3rd century the Jews announced a closed canon which left out the deuterocanonicals. It is believed that the Jews heard Christians quoting the deuterocanonical books and left those books out of their canon because of this.

Fast forward to Martin Luther. Luther left out the deuterocanonicals because he assumed that since the Jews didn’t use them, they were some how fraud. However, Luther didn’t realize that the early Christians and Jews of disporosa used the septuagint (which included the deuterocanons) and the Jews as a whole didn’t have a closed canon until the late 2nd to early 3rd century. This means that the deuterocanonicals were used in the first few centuries by all Christians and were always a part of what Christians considered to be divinely inspired sacred scripture from the very beginning of Christianity.

I Read a book called “Unabridged Christianity” by Father Romero and this is where I get my information from.

amazon.com/Unabridged-Christianity-Biblical-Questions-Catholic/dp/1579180566

Please comment and tell me if this sounds right or if I am mistaken or if I’ve left out details. This is what I’ve come to gather on the subject and I would appreciate everybody’s comment (catholic, protestant, atheist, etc.)

Thank you!

 

[Tietjen]

I’ll give a summary of my vague understanding of the difference. Please tell me if I am wrong and elaborate.

The Septuagint was the bible of the “Jews of Disporosa” (Jews dispersed in other lands) and it was written in Greek. Jews didn’t have a closed canon at the time. Since most of the early Christians spoke Greek, they adopted the Septuagint and used it in liturgy etc. In the first century A.D., a few more books were found in the Greek septuagint then were in the Hebrew bible and these were the Deuterocanonicals. Some Jews used the setpuagint and others used the Hebrew bible, depending on their location. In the late 2nd century to early 3rd century the Jews announced a closed canon which left out the deuterocanonicals. It is believed that the Jews heard Christians quoting the deuterocanonical books and left those books out of their canon because of this.

Fast forward to Martin Luther. Luther left out the deuterocanonicals because he assumed that since the Jews didn’t use them, they were some how fraud. However, Luther didn’t realize that the early Christians and Jews of disporosa used the septuagint (which included the deuterocanons) and the Jews as a whole didn’t have a closed canon until the late 2nd to early 3rd century. This means that the deuterocanonicals were used in the first few centuries by all Christians and were always a part of what Christians considered to be divinely inspired sacred scripture from the very beginning of Christianity.

I Read a book called “Unabridged Christianity” by Father Romero and this is where I get my information from.

amazon.com/Unabridged-Christianity-Biblical-Questions-Catholic/dp/1579180566

Please comment and tell me if this sounds right or if I am mistaken or if I’ve left out details. This is what I’ve come to gather on the subject and I would appreciate everybody’s comment (catholic, protestant, atheist, etc.)

Thank you!

I find it somewhat interesting that Luther decided to go with the Hebrew canon which was defined in the 1 century A.D. as an alternative to the scriptures being used by the Christians of the same period. It’s almost as though Luther supported the Jews that wanted to move further away from Christianity! LOL - Silly ol’ Luther.

 

[po18guy]

I find it somewhat interesting that Luther decided to go with the Hebrew canon which was defined in the 1 century A.D. as an alternative to the scriptures being used by the Christians of the same period. It’s almost as though Luther supported the Jews that wanted to move further away from Christianity! LOL - Silly ol’ Luther.

And, he wanted to throw out Jude, James, Hebrews and the Apocalypse, but was apparently prevented. How far would he have gone? Luther and Saint Jerome both thought that the deuterocanon books were apocryphal. Saint Jerome chose obedience while Luther chose disobedience.

 

[po18guy]

I’ll give a summary of my vague understanding of the difference. Please tell me if I am wrong and elaborate. Please comment and tell me if this sounds right or if I am mistaken or if I’ve left out details. This is what I’ve come to gather on the subject and I would appreciate everybody’s comment (catholic, protestant, atheist, etc.)

Thank you!

Check this link. Scroll down about three paragraphs to “best answer”. It seems to be right on. answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071120154945AAdMX06

 

[NHInsider]

I find it somewhat interesting that Luther decided to go with the Hebrew canon which was defined in the 1 century A.D. as an alternative to the scriptures being used by the Christians of the same period. It’s almost as though Luther supported the Jews that wanted to move further away from Christianity! LOL - Silly ol’ Luther.

Actually the MT, which Luther et al decided was the “authoritative” Hebrew, only dates back to the 11th century, IIRC. Although the determination of which books were to be considered “canonical” for synagogue use is supposed to have been made at the “Jamnia council” in the late first century, there is no actual evidence that such a council took place. It does seem certain that the down-grading and eventual rejection of a number of previously accepted books was as much a reaction to the spread of Christianity among hellenized Jews as it was based on the belief that they had been originally written in Greek.

 

[Curious_Hobbit]

Check this link. Scroll down about three paragraphs to “best answer”. It seems to be right on. answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071120154945AAdMX06

That was a good link you sent me, I read the whole thing! I had heard something about a disagreement between Jerome and Augustine before and the link touched on that. Does anyone else have anything else to add? Can anyone give me a source better than yahoo answers ? (no offense po18guy, I just need further reading)

 

[Roy5]

A few points

 1. There is a cogent case for both the Catholic and Protestant version of the Old Testament. The fact that your neighborhood synagogue uses the Protestant version can't be disregarded entirely. 

 2. As I recall, old Protestant Bibles carry the seven books between the OT and NT as the Apocrypha. They are not tossed out but perhaps 'demoted'. I note that verses are read sometimes at Protestant services, especially funerals. So, I'm not quite sure why Christians get so heated on the subject.

3. Frankly, perhaps it would have been better if Revelation (Apocalypse) had been omitted from the New Testament. It has become a major source of so many nonsensical interpretations and today encourages wild evangelists and self-proclaimed prophets to make all sorts of crazy predictions. I've read it many times and have tried to make sense out of it, but it simply isn't clear.  

4. I've noticed (and become concerned) that certain important Catholic media (EWTN, for example) seems to be aping Biblical literalism that is usually associated with Protestant fundamentalists. This has led me - honestly - to be attracted to a form of liberal Protestantism found in most of the major mainline denominations, where considerable leeway is permitted when it comes to Bible interpretation. I guess my curious and searching mind is in sync with that 'big tent' style of Christianity. I always enjoy vigorous conversations on Bible passages where ideas are exchanged without fear of being condemned as 'heretical'.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

A few points

 1. There is a cogent case for both the Catholic and Protestant version of the Old Testament. The fact that your neighborhood synagogue uses the Protestant version can't be disregarded entirely.  . . . .

When the Protestants rejected the Catholic Church they turned to the Jews for an authority for their Bible. The Jewish canon, developed in the first or second century after Christ, rejected all books not written originally in Hebrew. Greek speaking Jews had become Christians in much larger proportion than the Hebrew speaking. Also the rejected books contained some of the clearest prophecies confirming Jesus as the Messiah. Wisdom 2:12-24 is an excellent example:

12 “Let us lie in wait for the righteous man, because he is inconvenient to us and opposes our actions; he reproaches us for sins against the law, and accuses us of sins against our training. 13 He professes to have knowledge of God, and calls himself a child* of the Lord. 14 He became to us a reproof of our thoughts; 15 the very sight of him is a burden to us, because his manner of life is unlike that of others, and his ways are strange. 16 We are considered by him as something base, and he avoids our ways as unclean; he calls the last end of the righteous happy, and boasts that God is his father. 17 Let us see if his words are true, and let us test what will happen at the end of his life; 18 for if the righteous man is God’s son, he will help him, and will deliver him from the hand of his adversaries. 19 Let us test him with insult and torture, that we may find out how gentle he is, and make trial of his forbearance. 20 Let us condemn him to a shameful death, for, according to what he says, he will be protected.” 21 Thus they reasoned, but they were led astray, for their wickedness blinded them, 22 and they did not know the secret purposes of God, nor hope for the wages of holiness, nor discern the prize for blameless souls; 23 for God created man for incorruption, and made him in the image of his own eternity, * 24 but through the devil’s envy death entered the world, and those who belong to his party experience it.

This rejection of Greek scriptures also allowed them to condemn the New Testament writings. However, the Protestants didn’t follow them that far.

 

[Curious_Hobbit]

Can someone tell me how protestants reply to this? I would like to get a feel for both sides of the issue and would like hear how protestants take this issue. Any sources or articles I should read?

 

[Dave_Noonan]

I’ll give a summary of my vague understanding of the difference. Please tell me if I am wrong and elaborate.

The Septuagint was the bible of the “Jews of Disporosa” (Jews dispersed in other lands) and it was written in Greek. Jews didn’t have a closed canon at the time. Since most of the early Christians spoke Greek, they adopted the Septuagint and used it in liturgy etc. In the first century A.D., a few more books were found in the Greek septuagint then were in the Hebrew bible and these were the Deuterocanonicals. Some Jews used the setpuagint and others used the Hebrew bible, depending on their location. In the late 2nd century to early 3rd century the Jews announced a closed canon which left out the deuterocanonicals. It is believed that the Jews heard Christians quoting the deuterocanonical books and left those books out of their canon because of this.

Fast forward to Martin Luther. Luther left out the deuterocanonicals because he assumed that since the Jews didn’t use them, they were some how fraud. However, Luther didn’t realize that the early Christians and Jews of disporosa used the septuagint (which included the deuterocanons) and the Jews as a whole didn’t have a closed canon until the late 2nd to early 3rd century. This means that the deuterocanonicals were used in the first few centuries by all Christians and were always a part of what Christians considered to be divinely inspired sacred scripture from the very beginning of Christianity.

I Read a book called “Unabridged Christianity” by Father Romero and this is where I get my information from.

amazon.com/Unabridged-Christianity-Biblical-Questions-Catholic/dp/1579180566

Please comment and tell me if this sounds right or if I am mistaken or if I’ve left out details. This is what I’ve come to gather on the subject and I would appreciate everybody’s comment (catholic, protestant, atheist, etc.)

Thank you!

Hello Hobbit,

I haven’t read the book you’re referring to, but here’s what I would say that’s oversimplified or a little off base.

First off, there was really no “the Septuagint” or even “the Bible” until the invention of the codex (the bound book) until around the fourth century. Different groups likely had different collections of scrolls, although it seems that the first five books of what we now call the Bible had gained some prominence by the first century. These Greek translations were indeed largely used by Greek-speaking Jews (I think you mean “diaspora” though).

Actually, there is a greater difference between the Septuagint and the Hebrew Bible than simply the deuterocanonicals (e.g., Esdras, Prayer of Menasseh, 151 Psalm—all in the Septuagint, but not in the Roman Catholic canon). Various Eastern churches have still other books (e.g., the Book of Enoch—which is quoted in the New Testament) that are in neither the Roman Catholic canon nor the Hebrew Bible. So you couldn’t say that all Christians everywhere used the same Bible at the beginning of Christianity and that this somehow changed later on.

The Jews never “closed the canon” during the first through third centuries. First of all, this is not how Judaism decides anything—through some sort of “decree”—and second, such arguments are usually based on erroneous interpretations of the Talmud—a document that wasn’t even complied for hundreds of years after the period we are talking about.

Martin Luther never “left out” or removed books from the Bible. There are two issues here. The first is the same one faced by St. Jerome—if you’re trying to make a translation from the original language, what do you use as a source text? The only Hebrew texts available at the time were those of the Hebrew Bible. (Martin Luther would never have countenanced as authoritative a Jewish theological criteria for anything—he has a horrific anti-Semite.)

The second is that Luther had sort of an original view on biblical theology for his time—that some parts of the Bible are more important than others. Because the status of the deuterocanonicals had been debated before, combined with the language issues, Luther put them in a separate section—but he never removed them. When Roy5 says that Luther “demoted” these books, that might be a pretty good analogy. But every Bible that Luther had a hand in publishing contained the deuterocanonicals. Leaving these books out of the Bible entirely was a much later development. Martin Luther did translate the deuterocanonicals from Greek and included them, just as Jerome did in his Latin Bible.

 

[AndrewA]

Jewish scholars first translated the Torah into Koine Greek in the third century BC.[6][7] According to the record in the Talmud,

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint

There was a Septuagint …

 

[David2010]

This thread is very informative. I hadn’t known much about the evolution of the Bible.
(Although I had read that early Christian Bibles included the Book of Enoch too, before being removed. I don’t know why though.)

 

[Dave_Noonan]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint

There was a Septuagint …

What I mean is, you don’t have to decide what books the Septuagint consists of until you have to bind them together in a book. There were certainly Greek translations of various books, most prominently, the Torah.