How Do I Convince My Wife Not To Read a Protestant Bible?

[Pious_Mat]

Thanks for your post. I’m not to interested in debating the inspirtation of the deutero’s but am very interested in seeing if we can:
a.) Determine what books the early (first century and earlier) septuagint contained and were there any variations to the septuagint at that date.

b.) Determine from the NT what the apostles or Jesus thought of the deutero’s? I don’t think we can absolutely determine this one way or the other but I am interested in seeing what others think.

In light of your above post I do have a few questions:
a.) What evidence do you have that Jamnia even discussed the deutero’s? I have recently become rather fascinated by this subject and have only to resources. One being Beckwith’s “OT Canon In The NT Church” and the other by FF Bruce, “Canon of Scripture” and both of them report that Jamnia didn’t discuss the deutero’s at all. They could be wrong but that’s what they wrote.

b.) Do we (you, me, or anyone else) have any way of knowing exactly what the septuagint looked like in the first century or earlier? Were there different versions? What books did the earlier septuagint(s) contain and how do we know this?

To the best of my knowledge the septuagints that we have access to date only to the third or fourth century (I believe they only date to the fourth but may be wrong and am too lazy to look it up right now). The earliest codices we have are the Vaticanus, Sainiticus, and Alexadrinus but these are all Christian copies and vary in content.

We could be at this all day!

It is true that although the Vaticanus manuscript is currently the oldest we have, that does not meant that it did not exist in that form prior to then. It is also said by many scholars that the Vaticanus is a very “pure” mansucript that reflects sound scholarship of the time. The first century Jewish scholar Josephus, who relied heavily on the Septuagint, provides certain insight into it, as it seems that the septuagint that he used contained the Roman Catholic canonoical books. Since he was only about thirty years younger than Our Lord and lived in Jerusalem, most Jews in Israel at that time would have had some knowledge of the Septuagint. This same Septuagint that Josephus uses is the one clearly quoted by the Apostles.

It is the Apostles and their followers, who never seem to quabble about what is in the Septuagint (this point was moot–they talked about which were inspired, not what was in the translation), that seem to confirm what secondary documents tell us since the first century BC.

In other words, although we don’t have any direct, primary sources telling us that the Septuagint had 46 books, it is all but acknowledged by history. The suggestion that there were a different number of books–especially, that there were 39, is pure speculation. As you may know, F.F. Bruce accepts the seven deuterocanonical books as part of the Septuagint. His claim regards the Hebrew Bible, which was certainly used by Jews. That said, Javneh was preclusive, saying what wasn’t canonical, but rather what was–the Hebrew Bible and certain additions, all of which were regarded as inspired by Chrisitans, but weren’t seen as the whole of scripture. In other words, they didn’t have to mention them to exclude them. Also, it is rather speculative to presume that we know exactly what was discussed at Javneh (or Jamnia, if you prefer), since some scholars doubt it ever happened. We only know what came out of it–a Jewish canon of 39 books.

The suggestion that these seven books were omitted from the Septuagint was never suggested in any document before a former-Catholic writer named William Webster made the assertion.

 

[inthecloud]

Jewish scholar Josephus, who relied heavily on the Septuagint, provides certain insight into it, as it seems that the septuagint that he used contained the Roman Catholic canonoical books. Since he was only about thirty years younger than Our Lord and lived in Jerusalem, most Jews in Israel at that time would have had some knowledge of the Septuagint. This same Septuagint that Josephus uses is the one clearly quoted by the Apostles.

Warning Josephus was a Pharisee and followed Rabbi Hillel in the Bible cannon, that is basically the proto masoretic texts with the Yabné cannon minus some books.
The think is that Jews did not have a standard canon in Jesus time. Depended on the sect.

 

[Pious_Mat]

Warning Josephus was a Pharisee and followed Rabbi Hillel in the Bible cannon, that is basically the proto masoretic texts with the Yabné cannon minus some books.
The think is that Jews did not have a standard canon in Jesus time. Depended on the sect.

Thanks, good point.

Josephus acknowledges 22 canonical books, but is often found quoting the septuagint for scholarly purposes. This not only goes to show how available the septuagint was, but also the complete chaos in terms of canonicity at the time. The number of texts that people like Josephus could use is truly amazing.

 

[Pwrlftr]

PART ONE
I.

It is true that although the Vaticanus manuscript is currently the oldest we have, that does not meant that it did not exist in that form prior to then.

It doesn’t mean that it did either.

II.

It is also said by many scholars that the Vaticanus is a very “pure” mansucript that reflects sound scholarship of the time. The first century Jewish scholar Josephus, who relied heavily on the Septuagint, provides certain insight into it, as it seems that the septuagint that he used contained the Roman Catholic canonoical books. Since he was only about thirty years younger than Our Lord and lived in Jerusalem, most Jews in Israel at that time would have had some knowledge of the Septuagint. This same Septuagint that Josephus uses is the one clearly quoted by the Apostles.

The first century Jewish scholar Josephus also listed the books of the canon as numbering 22 and excluded the deutero’s.

III.

It is the Apostles and their followers, who never seem to quabble about what is in the Septuagint (this point was moot–they talked about which were inspired, not what was in the translation), that seem to confirm what secondary documents tell us since the first century BC.

They may never have discussed the issue because they knew the deutero’s weren’t inspired, this argument from silence is weak. Since you don’t give an example of what secondary documents tell us I am unclear as to what you mean.

Part II continued below

 

[Pwrlftr]

IV.

In other words, although we don’t have any direct, primary sources telling us that the Septuagint had 46 books, it is all but acknowledged by history.

Let’s see:
Josephus worked with the Septuagint and rejected the deutero’s.
Aquila worked with the Septuagint and rejected the deutero’s.
Philo worked with the Septuagint and there is no evidence that he accepted the deutero’s.

What history are you talking about that acknowledges the Septuagint had 46 books?

V.

The suggestion that there were a different number of books–especially, that there were 39, is pure speculation.

Not even close. It is not pure speculation to look at the facts we do know and draw conclusions from them.
Beckwith on Josephus:

One of the earliest clear references to the number of the canonical books is made by Josephus in the passage from his treatise Against Apion given on p. 118f. above. In this passage, he says that
‘We do not possess myriads of inconsistent books, conflicting with one another [as the Greeks do]; but our books, those which are justly believed, are only 22, and contain the record of all time.… We have given practical proof of our reverence for our own Scriptures. For, although such long ages have now passed, no one has ventured to add, or to remove, or to alter anything, and it is an instinct with every Jew, from the day of his birth, to regard them as the decrees of God, to abide by them, and (if need be) cheerfully to die for them.’
Beckwith, Roger T.: The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church and Its Background in Early Judaism. London : SPCK, 1985, S. 223

As you are probably aware, the way in which Josephus numbers the books indicates he accepts the canon with as both Jews and protestants accept it today (without the deutero’s).

Again from Beckwith on Aquila this time:
Beckwith:

The Significance of Aquila
If, however, the decision at Jamnia does not provide us with the clear milestone which it has been supposed to do, the evidence of the Pharisee Josephus, considered in previous chapters, does, and so does the Greek translation of the Old Testament by Aquila. Aquila was a Jewish proselyte, who according to Jerome (Commentary on Isaiah, bk. 3, on Isa. 8:11ff.) was a pupil of Rabbi Akiba, ob. ad 135, and according to Epiphanius (De Mensuris et Ponderibus 13–16) produced his very literal translation of what was substantially the Massoretic text in or about the twelfth year of Hadrian, ad 128–9, with a view to superseding the Septuagint, the version used by Christians. The similarity of his name has led many to believe that he is identical with the proselyte Onkelos, often mentioned in the rabbinical literature as a Bible-translator and as a pupil of Rabbi Eleazar and Rabbi Joshua, a generation before Rabbi Akiba (Bab. Megillah 3a etc.). If this is right, he must have been a pupil of Akiba in the earlier, not the later, stage of the latter’s career, which would make Epiphanius’s date for the publication of his version very credible.11

Now, we have evidence in the surviving fragments of Aquila’s translation that (though there is no hint of it including any apocryphal book) it included all five of the disputed books. Each of the five except Esther is amply attested (though with some confusion about Ecclesiastes), and there is one short quotation in Greek from his version of Esther, found in the midrash Esther Rabbah 2.7. The quotation is certainly distinct from the Septuagint, and is explicitly assigned to תרגם עקילם
Aquila’s rabbinical credentials are unimpeachable, and his work shows that, whatever individual rabbis may have said before ad 128–9 or afterwards, the accepted Jewish Bible at that date included the five disputed books, just as it did in the time of Josephus, thirty or more years earlier.

Beckwith, Roger T.: The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church and Its Background in Early Judaism. London : SPCK, 1985, S. 277

FF Bruce on Philo:

Philo of Alexandria evidently knew the scriptures in the Greek version only…one might have expected to find some trace of this (his acceptance of a wider Palestinian canon) in Philo’s voluminous writings. But in fact, while Philo has not given us a formal statement on the limits of the canon such as we have in Josephus, the books which he acknowledged as holy scripture were quiet certainly books included in the traditional Hebrew Bible

FF Bruce “The Canon of Scripture” p46

Josephus, Philo, and Aquila worked intensively with the spetuagint but yet none of them accepts the deutero’s so no, it’s not pure speculation to conclude that perhaps the early septuagint did not included the deutero’s.

CONTINUED BELOW

 

[Pwrlftr]

PART III
VI.

As you may know, F.F. Bruce accepts the seven deuterocanonical books as part of the Septuagint. His claim regards the Hebrew Bible, which was certainly used by Jews.

Can you provide a quote for me? I have a copy of the book and am interested in seeing this. It is true he accepts that the deutero’s appeared in the Christian copies of the Septuagint but am completely unaware of Bruce making the claim that the early/Jewish copies of the Septuagint contained the deutero’s.

VII.

That said, Javneh was preclusive, saying what wasn’t canonical, but rather what was–the Hebrew Bible and certain additions, all of which were regarded as inspired by Chrisitans, but weren’t seen as the whole of scripture. In other words, they didn’t have to mention them to exclude them. Also, it is rather speculative to presume that we know exactly what was discussed at Javneh (or Jamnia, if you prefer), since some scholars doubt it ever happened. We only know what came out of it–a Jewish canon of 39 books.

Apparently whatever evidence we do have does not mention any discussion of the deutero’s nor any debate on them.

VIII.

The suggestion that these seven books were omitted from the Septuagint was never suggested in any document before a former-Catholic writer named William Webster made the assertion.

Neither Beckwith or Bruce accept the theory of an Alexandrian canon and to the best of my knowledge both of their books both have copyrights that are earlier than William Webster’s.

FF Bruce’s “The Canon of Scripture” copyright 1988
Beckwith’s “The Old Testament Canon In The NT Church” copyright 1985
I can’t find my copy of Webster’s book but I believe the copyright is 199x.

So, Webster certainly wasn’t the first even when considered with only two other works.

Where did you come up with this claim that Webster was the first to conclude that the early version of the septagint lacked the deutero’s?

Also, what would it mean if he was the first one?

 

[Pwrlftr]

Thanks, good point.

Josephus acknowledges 22 canonical books, but is often found quoting the septuagint for scholarly purposes. This not only goes to show how available the septuagint was, but also the complete chaos in terms of canonicity at the time. The number of texts that people like Josephus could use is truly amazing.

Despite the number of texts Josephus could have used, he reported the canon as consisting of only 22 books and rejected the duetero’s.

 

[jmcrae]

I’m not sure why it matters which canon the unbelievers were using.

The lists given by the Catholic Church, going as far back as we can, consistently list the same Old Testament canon that we are using today. The myth that the canon we’re using today was “invented” at Trent isn’t supportable when you look at documents of the Church from the earliest centuries.

I recommend The Sources of Catholic Dogma,(Denzinger) and The Faith of the Early Fathers (Jurgens) which contain excellent translations of these source materials in readily accessible form.

(I leave it to the reader to do his own research, because I am in a bit of a rush at the moment. These books and others are available at any public library, and can be ordered through any book store.)

 

[inthecloud]

Can I add that many non Pharisee Jews rejected Daniel and Esther as uninspired. And they are in the Bible.
And many Jews liked the books of Maccabees but after the failed rebelion of 90 AD most probably the Pharisees did not what those books looked as sacred even if in my opinion are not less inspired than Daniel or Esther.
Or that in my opinion Ben Sirach and Wisdom are as inspired as Daniel, Esther or some of the minor prophets of the OT.
And I’m a sceptic here. I just like to now how the Bible came througth.
Josephus and Philo came from the Pharisees. Their belief on whose books were sacred came for Rabbi Hillel. In other words to book that were just finished in Hebrew right after the return form the exile.
They were very, very interested in excuding books that were not written in Hebrew and written in Palestine, Alexandria and Damascus. The reason are obviuos, theological infighting with other Jewish sects and with the early christians that might use books not written in Hebrew or written in Palestine, Damascus or Alexandria. See, 1 Macabees, hebrew but in Alexandria. Ben Sirach, hebrew, Damascus. Tobit, aramaic Palestine. And of course the NT books.
So the Pharisees, a sect that started in the Babylonian exile closed the canon declaring as inspired the books they can control as settled issue and them cheated their own rule by including Daniel and Esther.
So Josephus and Philo were following Hillel’s ideas on the Canon when they on purpose ignored the other books. The council of Yabneh just reafirmed Hillel’s canon plus some Pharisee approved additions.
But sometimes protestant foes of the Deuterocanonicals forget things.
Jews were not united in Jesus times, there were several sects with their own ideas on the canon. For example what if the Saducees had won?
The Pharisees are not all the Jews, their opinion are their opinions only.
The truly protestant idea on the canon would have been put the books into a interstamentary part of the Bible as done in the original AV 11611 and let the Holy Spirit guide the reader, not take them out completely.

 

[Pwrlftr]

Jews were not united in Jesus times, there were several sects with their own ideas on the canon. For example what if the Saducees had won?
The Pharisees are not all the Jews, their opinion are their opinions only.

Both Beckwith and Bruce maintain that the Saducees accepted the same canon that the Pharisees accepted and lay out their case quite well.

Out of curiosity, what makes you think the Saducees accepted a canon that was any different than the one accepted by the Pharisees?

 

[jmcrae]

Both Beckwith and Bruce maintain that the Saducees accepted the same canon that the Pharisees accepted and lay out their case quite well.

Out of curiosity, what makes you think the Saducees accepted a canon that was any different than the one accepted by the Pharisees?

According to my own reading (all secondary sources, unfortunately, but they seem to be unanimous), the Saducees accepted only the Books of Moses (aka the Torah), meaning Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. They rejected everything else, which is why Jesus always spoke to them of Moses, whenever He was answering them.

 

[inthecloud]

Then Beckwith and Bruce are in serious contradiction with other scholars jewish, secular and christian.
The Saducces only regarded as inspired the Torah. So did the Samaritans.
Read Hershel Shanks excellent compilation of articles on the Dead Sea Scrolls.

 

[Pwrlftr]

Then Beckwith and Bruce are in serious contradiction with other scholars jewish, secular and christian.
The Saducces only regarded as inspired the Torah. So did the Samaritans.
Read Hershel Shanks excellent compilation of articles on the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Okay…do we have a list of the books or some indication of the books that the Saducees thought canonical?

 

[jmcrae]

Okay…do we have a list of the books or some indication of the books that the Saducees thought canonical?

YES; the Books of Moses, also known as The Torah, which consists of:

Genesis
Exodus
Leviticus
Numbers
Deuteronomy.

Sorry to “shout” but I had listed them previously; apparently you missed it the first time.

 

[Pwrlftr]

YES; the Books of Moses, also known as The Torah, which consists of:

Genesis
Exodus
Leviticus
Numbers
Deuteronomy.

Sorry to “shout” but I had listed them previously; apparently you missed it the first time.

No problem with the “shouting”. I did miss your post entirely.

Anyway, I worded my question poorly.

What I was trying to get at is do we have some statement from the Sadducees that they only accepted the Torah or do we have a statement from Josephus, or whoever that gives some type of back up to the claim that the Sadducees only used the Torah.

 

[jmcrae]

No problem with the “shouting”. I did miss your post entirely.

Anyway, I worded my question poorly.

What I was trying to get at is do we have some statement from the Sadducees that they only accepted the Torah or do we have a statement from Josephus, or whoever that gives some type of back up to the claim that the Sadducees only used the Torah.

As I understand it, it’s somewhere in the Scriptures, that the Pharisees believed in eternal life (life after death) because they had the Septuagint (the only books of the Old Testament that speak explicitly about life after death are Wisdom and the books of the Maccabees, so they must have had those, at least) whereas the Saducees did not, meaning that (at the very least) they didn’t have the Deuterocanon, and because of the fact that Jesus is always talking to them about Moses, it seems as though the only authority for them was Moses, meaning that they wouldn’t have considered anything not written by him (or not somehow connected with him) to be authoritative.

I’m sure there’s more evidence than just that, but it seems to point in that direction. And everything I have in my personal library, both from Protestants and from Catholics begins with the assumption that the Saducees only ever used the Torah; nothing else.

Obviously they disagree on what the Pharisees used, but since St. Paul makes a speech to the Pharisees about how it is “obvious” that the Scriptures speak of life after death, it seems reasonable to think that he must have had the Book of Wisdom and the Books of the Maccabees.

 

[mackbrislawn]

There is no way to prove that Jesus or the apostles thought any of the deuterocanonicals were inspired.

I am sure you disagree so I am interested in hearing what you have to say.

Let’s turn it around–is there a way to prove that Jesus or the apostles did not think the deuterocanonicals were inspired?

 

[neuro_nurse]

[T]he Pharisees believed in eternal life (life after death) because they had the Septuagint (the only books of the Old Testament that speak explicitly about life after death are Wisdom and the books of the Maccabees, so they must have had those, at least) whereas the Saducees did not.

That’s why they were sad, you see.

 

[jmcrae]

That’s why they were sad, you see.

 

[thiekei]

Being an ex-Pentecostal in the process of converting to Catholic, for a while it was hard letting go of the NIV… I was raised KJV-Only but when I started searching for a better translation (IMHO) I went to the NIV.

Now I read the RSV-CE and love it…

I would suggest you buy or give her a Catholic translation and see where it goes from there. Maybe the both of you could become involved with your parish Bible Study…