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?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Justy90
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.🙂
The issue is not authority. The Catholic Church has not ruled in any official manner that a canon used by Jesus contained the Deuterocanonical books. What they have said with their authority is that the 7 books are part of the canon (local synods since around 380 AD first and finally set in stone at Trent).
So the issue of whether Jesus used a canon, if indeed he did use a canon in the sense we think about, is a historical issue and although you might be surprised; I do not think a single thing I have said on this particular thread is anything a Catholic scholar would disagree with.
 
A few of them were found in Hebrew form in the DSS. So available? Yes. Readily available? I don’t know
For the books with which we agree, are there any differences? I faintly remember something about Isaiah reading differently in the Masoretic text.
 
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.
I would say most people would agree that the LXX was the most widely used. What people do not know is that exact contents of the LXX. But you see that also is rather anachronistic because there may have been several canons (multiple versions of the LXX) in use. Like I said, the earliest copies of the canon(s) that we have come from the 3rd and 4th century and they differ. So the exact nature of what Christ used WOULD be significant for us. For Catholics, its rather immaterial.
 
For the books with which we agree, are there any differences? I faintly remember something about Isaiah reading differently in the Masoretic text.
Absolutely a big difference. For example Jeremiah is very different.
 
So the exact nature of what Christ used WOULD be significant for us. For Catholics, its rather immaterial.
Why would you say that?

Catholics believe that Jesus used the Septuagint. It’s a part of Tradition.
 
Why would you say that?

Catholics believe that Jesus used the Septuagint. It’s a part of Tradition.
I think you are overstating the case. Catholic scholars do not disagree with Protestant scholars that the majority of references match the LXX but also contain things from the MT and possibly others. If they do, please cite…a journal article or something to that effect. Catholic apologists not withstanding.
If you have an offiicial position that Jesus “used” the LXX as opposed to any others, that is news to me. You said it is Tradition (big T). I would love a link or proof of that. But once again, in regards to the LXX, the exact nature of the LXX is fluid. What the LXX looked like in that era is not something people can state with absolute certainity in regards to the Deuterocanonical books.
 
I hope I sufficiently answered the first post.

*Originally Posted by Dirk Skene
And your point? The Church did accept them. That’s all that matters.

The point is that the apocrypha has been questioned throughout history regardless of whether Rome accepted these books or not. *

I thought your point was about the Catholic Church getting Her Bible right the first time?
And to answer that point: She did get it right the first time. The Council of Trent in 1546 AD only confirmed what was done right the first time - as it was explained by other posters. They were in the original Catholic Bible and they remained in the Catholic Bible.

Others (such as St. Jerome) can question all they want, the Catholic Church has the last say in the matter regarding Her Bible. And they’ve been consistent since the ‘first time’.
If Rome accepts it then that is the way it is. That is the nice thing about having a rock solid foundation. Jesus is our founder & he left us bishops that were given his athority. Protestants don’t have that.
 
I think you are overstating the case. Catholic scholars do not disagree with Protestant scholars that the majority of references match the LXX but also contain things from the MT and possibly others. If they do, please cite…a journal article or something to that effect. Catholic apologists not withstanding.
If you have an offiicial position that Jesus “used” the LXX as opposed to any others, that is news to me. You said it is Tradition (big T). I would love a link or proof of that. But once again, in regards to the LXX, the exact nature of the LXX is fluid. What the LXX looked like in that era is not something people can state with absolute certainity in regards to the Deuterocanonical books.
USCCB:
Preface to the New American Bible Version of the Old Testament
The New American Bible has accomplished this in response to the need of the church in America today. It is the achievement of some fifty biblical scholars, the greater number of whom, though not all, are Catholics. In particular, the editors-in-chief have devoted twenty-five years to this work. The collaboration of scholars who are not Catholic fulfills the directive of the Second Vatican Council, not only that “correct translations be made into different languages especially from the original texts of the sacred books,” but that, “with the approval of the church authority, these translations be produced in cooperation with separated brothers” so that “all Christians may be able to use them.”

The text of the books contained in The New American Bible is a completely new translation throughout. From the original and the oldest available texts of the sacred books, it aims to convey as directly as possible the thought and individual style of the inspired writers. The better understanding of Hebrew and Greek, and the steady development of the science of textual criticism, the fruit of patient study since the time of St. Jerome, have allowed the translators and editors in their use of all available materials to approach more closely than ever before the sense of what the sacred authors actually wrote.

Where the translation supposes the received text–Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek, as the case may be–ordinarily contained in the best-known editions, as the original or the oldest extant form, no additional remarks are necessary. But for those who are happily able to study the original text of the scriptures at firsthand, a supplementary series of textual notes pertaining to the Old Testament was added originally in an appendix to the typical edition. (It is now obtainable in a separate booklet from The Catholic Biblical Association of America, The Catholic University of America, Washington, DC 20064.) These notes furnish a guide in those cases in which the editorial board judges that the manuscripts in the original languages, or the evidence of the ancient versions, or some similar source, furnish the correct reading of a passage, or at least a reading more true to the original than that customarily printed in the available editions.
**
The Massoretic text of 1 and 2 Samuel has in numerous instances been corrected by the more ancient manuscripts Samuel a, b, and c from Cave 4 of Qumran, with the aid of important evidence from the Septuagint in both its oldest form and its Lucianic recension. Fragments of the lost Book of Tobit in Aramaic and in Hebrew, recovered from Cave 4 of Qumran, are in substantial agreement with the Sinaiticus Greek recension used for the translation of this book. The lost original Hebrew text of 1 Maccabees is replaced by its oldest extant form in Greek. Judith, 2 Maccabees, and parts of Esther are also translated from the Greek.**

The basic text for the Psalms is not the Massoretic but one which the editors considered closer to the original inspired form, namely the Hebrew text underlying the new Latin Psalter of the Church, the Liber Psalmorum (1944, 1 19452). Nevertheless they retained full liberty to establish the reading of the original text on sound critical principles.

The translation of Sirach, based on the original Hebrew as far as it is preserved and corrected from the ancient versions, is often interpreted in the light of the traditional Greek text. In the Book of Baruch the basic text is the Greek of the Septuagint, with some readings derived from an underlying Hebrew form no longer extant. In the deuterocanonical sections of Daniel (3:24-91, chapter 13 and chapter 14 [these are Azariah, Susanna and Bel and the Dragon respectively in WORDsearch]), the basic text is the Greek text of Theodotion, occasionally revised according to the Greek text of the Septuagint.

In some instances in the Book of Job, in Proverbs, Sirach, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Hosea, Amos, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zechariah there is good reason to believe that the original order of lines was accidentally disturbed in the transmission of the text. The verse numbers given in such cases are always those of the current Hebrew text, though the arrangement differs. In these instances the textual notes advise the reader of the difficulty. Cases of exceptional dislocation are called to the reader’s attention by footnotes.

The Books of Genesis to Ruth were first published in 1952; the Wisdom Books, Job to Sirach, in 1955; the Prophetic Books, Isaiah to Malachi, in 1961; and the Historical Books, Samuel to Maccabees, in 1969. In the present edition of Genesis to Ruth there are certain new features: a general introduction to the Pentateuch, a retranslation of the text of Genesis with an introduction, cross-references, and revised textual notes, besides new and expanded exegetical notes which take into consideration the various sources or literary traditions.
Continued
 
Continued
The revision of Job to Sirach includes changes in strophe division in Job and Proverbs and in titles of principal parts and sections of Wisdom and Ecclesiastes. Corrections in the text of Sirach are made in Sir 39:27-35; 40; 41; 42; 43; 44:1-17 on the basis of the Masada text, and in Sir 51:13-30 on the basis of the occurrence of this canticle in the Psalms scroll from Qumran Cave 11. In this typical edition, new corrections are reflected in the textual notes of Job, Proverbs, Wisdom, and Sirach. In the Psalms, the enumeration found in the Hebrew text is followed instead of the double enumeration, according to both the Hebrew and the Latin Vulgate texts, contained in the previous edition of this book.
In the Prophetic Books Isaiah to Malachi, only minor revisions have been made in the structure and wording of the texts, and in the textual notes.
The fragments found at Qumran are dated to the time of Jesus. Although Jesus was not an Essene, I think it’s safe to assume that was what he used. The Essenes could have hidden the text to safeguard them from the Roman persecution and the destruction of the Temple.
 
What you posted confirms what I said. The Catholic Church uses the LXX but they also use the MT as your second post confirms when appropriate. Certainly the Greek version is the most widely used but once again it is best to think Greek version(s). Because there are textual variants in Qumran as well naturally.
As far as what Jesus used, you are contending that what he used was the Essene texts if you will because they date from the same time? That would be similiar to saying that if they did a dig 2000 years from now to find out what you used and they found a New World Translation…it would prove you used it because it comes from the same era? I want to make sure I understand this assertion because quite frankly no one makes it…except maybe you!🤷
 
And WHY did I link the site Zooey? Just to clarify.
Because you didn’t realize just how bad a source of “information” they are. Nor that we are all too familiar with their c***.
Or, :shrug:you didn’t know that I have no interest in bowling…😛
 
As far as what Jesus used, you are contending that what he used was the Essene texts if you will because they date from the same time? That would be similiar to saying that if they did a dig 2000 years from now to find out what you used and they found a New World Translation…it would prove you used it because it comes from the same era? I want to make sure I understand this assertion because quite frankly no one makes it…except maybe you!🤷
Not quite. The world was much smaller then. The Jewish culture was more homogeneous then.

The point is to answer the OP is that the 7 OT books are part of the divinely inspired books of the Bible, not to be shifted to the back as an addendum, not quite on par with the rest of the Bible

I think there is a lot more evidence to substantiate the Catholic position on these 7 books than the Protestant position.
 
A couple of random thoughts here.

Since God has not seemed to chime in and give the definite word on whether the correct canon is 66, 73, or 80 books, it would seem to me the rhetoric on all sides on this issue could stand to be toned down a bit.

I really wonder how this looks on the outside when Christians can not get their act together to even arrive at a consensus on just what the written Word of God is. I mean at least the Muslims do not argue about what the Koran is.🤷

That being said I am a little curious on the history on why the Protestant Bible is 66 books. And I would appreciate it if this history were a little more objective than “Heretic Martin Luther decided to cut out 7 books”.

Again, I know very little on the topic, and it does seem a little interesting. It is apparant that sifting through the spin to get at the facts is a tad problematic.
 
Because you didn’t realize just how bad a source of “information” they are. Nor that we are all too familiar with their c***.
Or, :shrug:you didn’t know that I have no interest in bowling…😛
I have already clarified on this thread that I posted the link because it is the source of the OP’s question. They got the question, as well as other questions, from that site. That does not mean I view them as a good or bad source of information but simply the source so to speak.
 
Not quite. The world was much smaller then. The Jewish culture was more homogeneous then.

.
We do not even know for sure that the Essenes were at Qumran. We certainly do not see anything resembling a canon in any formal sense…if I have overstated my analogy. Which I may have 😃
 
Enjoying reading the posts 👍

While individuals may have expressed their personal opinions over the years, Pope Damascus decreed a 73 book Canon at the Council of Rome in 382 AD and for us Catholics it has not changed.

A few examples of Councils…

73 - Carthage (397)
73 - Carthage (419)
73 - Nicaea II (787)
73 - Florence (1441),
73 - Trent (1545-1563)
73 - Vatican I (1869-1870)
73 - Vatican II (1962-1965)
 
We do not even know for sure that the Essenes were at Qumran. We certainly do not see anything resembling a canon in any formal sense…if I have overstated my analogy. Which I may have 😃
Enjoying reading the posts 👍

While individuals may have expressed their personal opinions over the years, Pope Damascus decreed a 73 book Canon at the Council of Rome in 382 AD and for us Catholics it has not changed.

A few examples of Councils…

73 - Carthage (397)
73 - Carthage (419)
73 - Nicaea II (787)
73 - Florence (1441),
73 - Trent (1545-1563)
73 - Vatican I (1869-1870)
73 - Vatican II (1962-1965)
Yes, on Pope St. Damasus I’s order to St Jerome to translate into the Vulgate from the original Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic. When there is no authority, one can cast doubt on everything and self interpret.
Although St Jerome doubted the inspiration of the 7 books, he obeyed the Pope.
St. Jerome owes his place in the history of exegetical studies chiefly to his revisions and translations of the Bible. Until about 391-2, he considered the Septuagint translation as inspired. **But the progress of his Hebraistic studies and his intercourse with the rabbis made him give up that idea, and he recognized as inspired the original text only. **It was about this period that he undertook the translation of the Old Testament from the Hebrew. But he went too far in his reaction against the ideas of his time, and is open to reproach for not having sufficiently appreciated the Septuagint. This latter version was made from a much older, and at times much purer, Hebrew text than the one in use at the end of the fourth century. Hence the necessity of taking the Septuagint into consideration in any attempt to restore the text of the Old Testament. With this exception we must admit the excellence of the translation made by St. Jerome.
newadvent.org/cathen/08341a.htm

This shows here was some controversy, but the 7 books were commonly accepted, and the Pope had to make a statement to put an end to the controversy…
 
I think the concern is that your posts are like a lawyer seeking to prove reasonable doubt that the Catholic Church is not what it claims to be rather than discussing what is great, laudable, holy, didactic, and life-changing about Anglicanism. You haven’t presented any arguments in favor of your denomination, just attempts to damn ours. The hypothesis that you have regularly formulated is that the Catholic Church is a pack of liars mostly starting at Trent, telling the world it is infallible and making theological dogma with anathemas attached that are falsehoods. I, and I can safely speak for many others here hopefully, can safely say you’re wrong, with respect. Have you ever tried, which any intellectually-honest soul would do, to prove the Church RIGHT and look at those facts that may make you uncomfortable? I am currently re-reading Early Church history and I can safely tell you that it was the Holy Father that led the way toward saving Athanasius and fighting Arianism, Docetism, Donatism, Gnosticisim, and every other sickening heresy that has ever accosted the Catholic faith. Why are you so quick to doubt and assume the worst about the papacy? Can you produce any primary source quotations or statements in the correct context that disprove the papacy and the claims of the Church?

Henry VIII, Elizabeth I, Cranmer, all these folks are just as fair game as the popes are, which you regularly criticize vigorously. If anyone is begging to have history beat up on him, it’s Henry VIII…
I am doing the same with Catholicism as you have done with Anglicanism Gurney and am not satisified with the responses that I have been given to reasonable questions. You have aired your qualms with the Anglicans time and again here Gurney, I’m well aware of them. You associate heresy, corruption and wide spread wrongdoing with Anglicanism almost every time you mention it. I come here and I ask a reasonable question as a post and here you are going into the usual showcase of your endless mind of knowledge. It seems to never change with you and frankly I am saddened by it. I am disappointed that your infinite wisdom has brought you to the point it has. It is unfortunate.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top