If the Catholic church gave the world the Bible in 397 AD, then why did so many versions of the canon continue to circulate afterwards?

[BrianH]

If this is agreed as factual by neutral scholars with absolutely no axe to grind…ie…the canon that Jesus used did in fact have the DeuteroCanonicals / Apocrypha, I would think this to be significant evidence. As well as the reverse. As you might guess, I am very skeptical of spin.

What right do any of us have to alter what Jesus used and accepted. If it was good enough for Jesus it is good enough for me sort of makes sense.

Outside of a archeological find, it just cannot happen. Oh I suppose there is an ancient scroll sitting around somewhere yet to be translated but I rather doubt that as well. All we have for now are Bibles (so to speak) from 300 years later and they have SOME of these books; as well as additional NT books in some cases.

 

[BrianH]

JL: If those books are Apocrypha why did the original KJV and Angilican bibles before that have them.

This makes no sense because the 1611 KJV has them under the section *labeled *Apocrypha…unless I do not understand what this per is saying…

 

[qui_est_ce]

From what I have been taught and have researched, the reason the Catholic Church used the Septuagint as the Old Testament canon of Sacred Scripture because it was the only canon in existence at the time of Christ and the Apostles. Ptolemy II Philadelphus, the King of Egypt from 287 to 247 B.C. had established a valuable library at Alexandria and wanted to include the sacred books of the Jews. He requested seventy two Jewish scholars (hence the term “Septuagint”, meaning seventy), six scholars each,
from each of the twelve tribes, to translate their sacred writings from Hebrew into Greek so that he and the rest of the Greek-speaking world could understand them, as Greek had become the universal language by that time. Amazingly enough, they each returned with identical translations. While there is some question as to exact dates, it is agreed by most biblical scholars that the use of the Alexandrian version, or the “Septuagint”, was wide-spread by at least 150-100 B.C. (probably sooner) and therefore certainly in
use at the time of Christ, and therefore at the origin of the Church (Pentecost). As that was the only canon in existence at that time, it was the canon from which the Catholic Church taught (and still does) and therefore was included in the canon of the Bible. Obviously, there would not have been any discussion or argument between using the Septuagint or the Palestinian canon of the Old Testament because the -]Palestinian /-]OT in Hebrew lacked these 7 books at the time of Jesus. -]version did not exist until roughly four centuries later. Interestingly enough, many of the books/-]The Jews met in Jamnia around 90 AD and threw these 7 books out because there were no Hebrew texts in existence any more.
(or at least fragments of them) termed “apocryphal” by non-Catholics were found, (written in Hebrew) in the Dead Sea Scrolls discovered in modern times.

This is what I have been taught as well. The only refutation of the above I’ve ever seen is from anti-Catholic sources like the one Brian referenced. I’ve made some changes in red to your account.

And why would anyone accept an OT Canon from the very people who denied Jesus?

 

[qui_est_ce]

Outside of a archeological find, it just cannot happen. Oh I suppose there is an ancient scroll sitting around somewhere yet to be translated but I rather doubt that as well. All we have for now are Bibles (so to speak) from 300 years later and they have SOME of these books; as well as additional NT books in some cases.

This is incorrect. An ancient version of the text have just recently been put together

cbc.ca/arts/books/story/2008/07/24/online-codex-sinaiticus.html?ref=rss

Website offers peek into ancient, scattered Bible
Last Updated: Thursday, July 24, 2008 | 11:55 AM ET Comments35Recommend53
CBC News

Religious scholars, rare document experts and history buffs around the globe will get a chance to peruse segments of the Codex Sinaiticus online, as curators launch a website showcasing the valuable biblical text.

The original handwritten, ancient Greek manuscript is scattered among facilities in Russia, Egypt, Germany and the U.K…

However, the document is being reunited digitally via scanned, searchable images and being offered online by the British Library and the curators of the text: the University of Leipzig, the National Library of Russia and St. Catherines Monastery in Egypt.

“The user will come to the website and will be able to look at images of each page of Codex Sinaiticus — will be able to zoom in and out and look around the page and see the page lit in standard light,” said Juan Garces, a curator for the digitizing project.

The first segment — including the Gospel of Mark and the Book of Psalms — went online Thursday, though the images were often unavailable as of midday, with the webpage citing “too many concurrent connections … Please try again later.”

Updates will follow in November and July 2009. There are also plans to translate the manuscript into other languages.

The Codex Sinaiticus dates from the fourth century and was assembled by Roman emperor Constantine, who had adopted Christianity. The document includes the oldest complete copy of the New Testament Bible, as well as parts of the Old Testament, the Apocrypha and two early Christian texts: the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas.

In the mid-19th century, a German biblical scholar discovered the codex at the St. Catherines Monastery at Mount Sinai. Portions of it later turned up in Russia, where authorities sold several sections to the British Library in 1933. Other portions of the manuscript landed in Leipzig, Germany.

In 1975, monks at the Egyptian monastery stumbled on to additional fragments of the codex in a hidden room.

 

[BrianH]

This is what I have been taught as well. The only refutation of the above I’ve ever seen is from anti-Catholic sources like the one Brian referenced. I’ve made some changes in red to your account.

And why would anyone accept an OT Canon from the very people who denied Jesus?

First of all, the information about the LXX given is largely the myths surrounding them. But in terms of Jamnia, the changes you made, please read this link. Jamnia the way you describe it is also a myth
catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0409fea4.asp

 

[BrianH]

This is incorrect. An ancient version of the text have just recently been put together

cbc.ca/arts/books/story/2008/07/24/online-codex-sinaiticus.html?ref=rss

Website offers peek into ancient, scattered Bible
Last Updated: Thursday, July 24, 2008 | 11:55 AM ET Comments35Recommend53
CBC News

Religious scholars, rare document experts and history buffs around the globe will get a chance to peruse segments of the Codex Sinaiticus online, as curators launch a website showcasing the valuable biblical text.

The original handwritten, ancient Greek manuscript is scattered among facilities in Russia, Egypt, Germany and the U.K…

However, the document is being reunited digitally via scanned, searchable images and being offered online by the British Library and the curators of the text: the University of Leipzig, the National Library of Russia and St. Catherines Monastery in Egypt.

“The user will come to the website and will be able to look at images of each page of Codex Sinaiticus — will be able to zoom in and out and look around the page and see the page lit in standard light,” said Juan Garces, a curator for the digitizing project.

The first segment — including the Gospel of Mark and the Book of Psalms — went online Thursday, though the images were often unavailable as of midday, with the webpage citing “too many concurrent connections … Please try again later.”

Updates will follow in November and July 2009. There are also plans to translate the manuscript into other languages.

The Codex Sinaiticus dates from the fourth century and was assembled by Roman emperor Constantine, who had adopted Christianity. The document includes the oldest complete copy of the New Testament Bible, as well as parts of the Old Testament, the Apocrypha and two early Christian texts: the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas.

In the mid-19th century, a German biblical scholar discovered the codex at the St. Catherines Monastery at Mount Sinai. Portions of it later turned up in Russia, where authorities sold several sections to the British Library in 1933. Other portions of the manuscript landed in Leipzig, Germany.

In 1975, monks at the Egyptian monastery stumbled on to additional fragments of the codex in a hidden room.

No I am absolutely correct in my statement. Sinaticus is 4th century and it does not contain all of the “apocrypha”. It contains Tobith, Judith, 1 & 4 Maccabees, Wisdom and Sirach.

 

[qui_est_ce]

No I am absolutely correct in my statement. Sinaticus is 4th century and it does not contain all of the “apocrypha”. It contains Tobith, Judith, 1 & 4 Maccabees, Wisdom and Sirach.

Then please clarify your statement.

Outside of a archeological find, it just cannot happen. Oh I suppose there is an ancient scroll sitting around somewhere yet to be translated but I rather doubt that as well. All we have for now are Bibles (so to speak) from 300 years later and they have SOME of these books; as well as additional NT books in some cases.

As Steve pointed out in an earlier post, fragments of the “Apocryphal” books in Hebrew were found at Qumran.

 

[SteveVH]

If this is agreed as factual by neutral scholars with absolutely no axe to grind…ie…the canon that Jesus used did in fact have the DeuteroCanonicals / Apocrypha, I would think this to be significant evidence. As well as the reverse. As you might guess, I am very skeptical of spin.

What right do any of us have to alter what Jesus used and accepted. If it was good enough for Jesus it is good enough for me sort of makes sense.

I don’t think there is any disagreement among biblical scholars that the Septaugint preceeded the Palestinian version of the Old Testament. Its pretty much a matter of historical fact. If there is I would like to know about it. It is certainly something that can be researched. I’ll go back and try and find my sources.

 

[AmateurPianist]

And why would anyone accept an OT Canon from the very people who denied Jesus?

Because it was (presumably) the canon that Jesus used and Jesus had no issues with it.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Because it was (presumably) the canon that Jesus used and Jesus had no issues with it.

He used the Greek. . There was no Hebrew around at the time of Jesus. No one spoke Hebrew anymore. They spoke Greek, Latin, and Aramaic.

There may have been an Aramaic text around, but I’m no scholar

 

[AmateurPianist]

I don’t think there is any disagreement among biblical scholars that the Septaugint preceeded the Palestinian version of the Old Testament. Its pretty much a matter of historical fact. If there is I would like to know about it. It is certainly something that can be researched. I’ll go back and try and find my sources.

This is confusing to me. I read one post that says the Hebrew Bible Jesus used did not have the Deuterocanonicals / Apocrypha in it. I read another post that says the Greek Bible Jesus used did have it in it.

Is is a settled historical fact that Jesus used one version or another? Or are the really smart people arguing about this and really we just don’t know.

This is why I don’t get into debates on whether the 80, 73, or 66 book Bible is the “real Bible”. It is just too darned confusing.

 

[BrianH]

Then please clarify your statement.

As Steve pointed out in an earlier post, fragments of the “Apocryphal” books in Hebrew were found at Qumran.

This was said

the canon that Jesus used did in fact have the DeuteroCanonicals / Apocrypha,

Where do I even start? It is generally accepted that the majority of the NT quotes line up with the LXX. We all know that. A significant portion lines up with the MT. Some scholars are just not sure about a few passages because they do not line up with any existing texts. Based upon this fact alone, you cannot ascertain that a certain text was or was not used in all cases. Second of all, the NT writers may or may not, depending upon your perspective, be using their sources to provide additional information for what was said when. For example, Luke states that he complied multiple records. Did Luke use the LXX to fill in missing pieces? Could be. Maybe not.
So what you would need is an archelogical dig from around that time corresponding to what sect of Judaism Christ represented to come close to being able to approximate that.
As far as Qumran, Jesus was not an Essene; IF INDEED QUMRAN IS the Essenes. Surely you know that is not agreed by everyone. Next, you must know that no one ever writes about the DSS in terms of canon. That is an anchronistic and would be a first for anything I read. Yes, of course the DSS contains some of the Deuterocanonical books in Hebrew. I learned that at Junior College in 89:shrug: That has nothing to do with determining with any precision what the exact canon used by Christ contained. Or tell ME why it does…

 

[SteveVH]

This is what I have been taught as well. The only refutation of the above I’ve ever seen is from anti-Catholic sources like the one Brian referenced. I’ve made some changes in red to your account.

And why would anyone accept an OT Canon from the very people who denied Jesus?

Maybe I’m missing something, but if the 7 books were thrown out by the Jews in 90 AD then they would still have been included at the time of Jesus (prior to 90 AD).

 

[BrianH]

He used the Greek. . There was no Hebrew around at the time of Jesus. No one spoke Hebrew anymore. They spoke Greek, Latin, and Aramaic.

There may have been an Aramaic text around, but I’m no scholar

What?!?!?!
They certainly had a Hebrew text around. Christ himself refers to the law and a jot or tittle should not pass…
I am not stating it was the majority of the text used but who says that no Hebrew text was around??
Or am I misunderstanding you??

 

[BrianH]

Maybe I’m missing something, but if the 7 books were thrown out by the Jews in 90 AD then they would still have been included at the time of Jesus (prior to 90 AD).

The seven books were not thrown out in 90 AD. Here is a Catholic link if you do not want to take my word for it

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

 

[qui_est_ce]

Brian H and Amateur-
I think what you are lacking is Authority. Scholars have their biases and will debate. I personally know some theologians who teach at the local Jesuit University that do not believe in God! They are excellent in their field. They have even translated from Ancient Syriac texts into English.

It’s really not up for debate for me, but I do like history and learning more about the origins of my faith, so I am pretty biased as well. I do try to be open to learning other opinions, though.

 

[qui_est_ce]

What?!?!?!
They certainly had a Hebrew text around. Christ himself refers to the law and a jot or tittle should not pass…
I am not stating it was the majority of the text used but who says that no Hebrew text was around??
Or am I misunderstanding you??

The 7 “Apocryphal” books were not available in Hebrew at the time of Jesus, according to the way I was taught. I’ll check the link you posted to make sure that’s correct, unless you’ve already found it in there and can post it.

 

[qui_est_ce]

So far, from the link:

The so-called “Council of Jabneh” was a group of Jewish scholars who were granted permission by Rome around the year 90 to meet in Palestine near the Mediterranean Sea in Jabneh (or Jamnia). Here they established a non-authoritative, “reconstituted” Sanhedrin (note 3, sidebar, page 25). Among the things they discussed was the status of several questionable writings in the Jewish Bible. They also rejected the Christian writings and made a new translation of the Greek Septuagint.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Since the early Christians were using the Septuagint to convert Gentiles to Christianity, as early as 50 AD, would it be safe to assume that was the version that was prevalent in Palestine at the time?

We do know the Septuagint was the only **authorized **version used by Christians until Martin Luther’s Reformation.

Unauthorized versions were around, but full of errors.

 

[BrianH]

The 7 “Apocryphal” books were not available in Hebrew at the time of Jesus, according to the way I was taught. I’ll check the link you posted to make sure that’s correct, unless you’ve already found it in there and can post it.

A few of them were found in Hebrew form in the DSS. So available? Yes. Readily available? I don’t know