Infallible Septuagint?

[Mannyfit75]

THE COUNCIL OF TRENT:

Following, then, the examples of the orthodox Fathers, it receives and venerates with a feeling of piety and reverence all the books both of the Old and New Testaments, since one God is the author of both; also the traditions, whether they relate to faith or to morals, as having been dictated either orally by Christ or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic Church in unbroken succession.

It has thought it proper, moreover, to insert in this decree a list of the sacred books, lest a doubt might arise in the mind of someone as to which are the books received by this council.[4]

They are the following:

Of the Old Testament, the five books of Moses, namely, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Joshua, Judges, Ruth, the four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the first and second of Esdras, the latter of which is called Nehemias, Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidic Psalter of 150 Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel, the twelve minor Prophets, namely, Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggeus, Zacharias, Malachias; two books of Machabees, the first and second.

Of the New Testament, the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; the Acts of the Apostles written by Luke the Evangelist; fourteen Epistles of Paul the Apostle, to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two of Peter the Apostle, three of John the Apostle, one of James the Apostle, one of Jude the Apostle, and the Apocalypse of John the Apostle.

If anyone does not accept as sacred and canonical the aforesaid books in their entirety and with all their parts, as they have been accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate Edition, and knowingly and deliberately rejects the aforesaid traditions, let him be anathema.

Source: ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/TRENT4.HTM

You said the Catholic Church does not consider the Septuagint infallible. However, the Council made it to be so. The Latin Vulgate was translated from the Septuagint since it has 46 OT text listed.

The introduction states:

The holy, ecumenical and general Council of Trent, lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, the same three legates of the Apostolic See presiding, keeps this constantly in view, namely, that the purity of the Gospel may be preserved in the Church after the errors have been removed.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Are you changing the topic?

Nope, you claim the CC doesn’t proclaim the LXX is not infallible. However, the Council says something else.

 

[BrianH]

Source: ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/TRENT4.HTM

You said the Catholic Church does not consider the Septuagint infallible.
That is correct.

However, the Council made it to be so. The Latin Vulgate was translated from the Septuagint since it has 46 OT text listed.

 

[Mannyfit75]

That is correct.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Actually, canonically speaking the Council of Carthage had no power to determine the biblical canon for the whole Church. It was a “provincial” not “ecumenical” council and so was only normative for its province (north Africa, excluding Egypt). Other ancient authorities, such as St. Cyril of Alexandria (Egypt), gave lists of books for the O.T. that were different. Because of this, medieval canonists (e.g. the Ordinary Gloss to the Canon Law in 1210), distinguished between what we now call the pro-canonical (Hebrew) books of the O.T. and the deutero-canonical (extent only in Greek) books of the O.T. In fact, however, this made no theological difference since even though Jerome favored the “short” canon of the O.T. in his later life, all orthodox theologians from the 100s on quoted the “deutero-canonical” books as if they were just as authoritative as the “proto-canonical” books. This was the voice of tradition going back to the time of the Paul and the Gospel writers who generally quote the O.T. from the Greek (and thus longer) text. Only with the Council of Trent did an Ecumenical Council define the extent of the canon for the whole Church officially. Luther, who decided to cut the deutero-canonicals from his bible (mostly because they included prayers for the dead), also knew that the N.T. canon was not “official.” So he wanted to cut books like James and Jude from that. His followers finally convinced him to “observe tradition” and leave them in. Eastern Orthodox still debate over what should be in the O.T.–some follow Luther, some the Catholic Church, others add books that even the Catholics don’t (e.g. 3 and 4 Maccabees 2 Ezra). Older Protestants – as opposed to their American offspring – knew that the problem was complicated: The King James Bible translators included the Deutero-canonicals in an appendix and ordered that it always be included with printings of the Bible. Only in the 1800s did the distributers of the KJB omit (illegally) this appendix. They did so to save weight in shipping. Interesting what matters to some people in what belongs in the Bible.

 

[BrianH]

BrianH;2916631:

The list is similar with in the Council of Florence in 1440.

Five books of Moses, namely Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, Esdras, Nehemiah, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Job, Psalms of David, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, namely Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi; two books of the Maccabees; the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; fourteen letters of Paul, to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, two to the Thessalonians, to the Colossians, two to Timothy, to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two letters of Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude; Acts of the Apostles; Apocalypse of John.

We are not discussing the canon. Do not change the topic

 

[BrianH]

Actually, canonically speaking the Council of Carthage had no power to determine the biblical canon for the whole Church. It was a “provincial” not “ecumenical” council and so was only normative for its province (north Africa, excluding Egypt). Other ancient authorities, such as St. Cyril of Alexandria (Egypt), gave lists of books for the O.T. that were different. Because of this, medieval canonists (e.g. the Ordinary Gloss to the Canon Law in 1210), distinguished between what we now call the pro-canonical (Hebrew) books of the O.T. and the deutero-canonical (extent only in Greek) books of the O.T. In fact, however, this made no theological difference since even though Jerome favored the “short” canon of the O.T. in his later life, all orthodox theologians from the 100s on quoted the “deutero-canonical” books as if they were just as authoritative as the “proto-canonical” books. This was the voice of tradition going back to the time of the Paul and the Gospel writers who generally quote the O.T. from the Greek (and thus longer) text. Only with the Council of Trent did an Ecumenical Council define the extent of the canon for the whole Church officially. Luther, who decided to cut the deutero-canonicals from his bible (mostly because they included prayers for the dead), also knew that the N.T. canon was not “official.” So he wanted to cut books like James and Jude from that. His followers finally convinced him to “observe tradition” and leave them in. Eastern Orthodox still debate over what should be in the O.T.–some follow Luther, some the Catholic Church, others add books that even the Catholics don’t (e.g. 3 and 4 Maccabees 2 Ezra). Older Protestants – as opposed to their American offspring – knew that the problem was complicated: The King James Bible translators included the Deutero-canonicals in an appendix and ordered that it always be included with printings of the Bible. Only in the 1800s did the distributers of the KJB omit (illegally) this appendix. They did so to save weight in shipping. Interesting what matters to some people in what belongs in the Bible.

What are you doing?

 

[Mannyfit75]

Third Council of Carthage (A.D. 397).

The Third Council of Carthage was not a general council but a regional council of African bishops, much under the influence of Augustine. The English text below is from Bruce Metzger. Canon 24. Besides the canonical Scriptures (listed below), nothing shall be read in church under the name of divine Scriptures. Moreover, the canonical Scriptures are these: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the four books of the Kings,(a) the two books of Chronicles, Job, the Psalms of David, five books of Solomon,(b) the book of the Twelve [minor] Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Tobias, Judith, Esther, the two books of Ezra,(c) and the two books of the Maccabees. The books of the New Testament: the Gospels, four books; the Acts of the Apostles, one book; the epistles of the apostle Paul, thirteen; of the same to the Hebrews, one epistle; of Peter, two; of John the apostle, three; of James, one; of Jude, one; the Revelation of John. Concerning the confirmation of this canon, the Church across the sea shall be consulted. On the anniversaries of martyrs, their acts shall also be read.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Mannyfit75;2916655:

We are not discussing the canon. Do not change the topic

Well, you ask its 1800 too. Late. My friend. The list in the Council of Trent is the same as the previous other Councils like Hippo and Carthage. They were local Councils, but the list is the same.

 

[BrianH]

BrianH;2916661:

Well, you ask its 1800 too. Late. My friend. The list in the Council of Trent is the same as the previous other Councils like Hippo and Carthage. They were local Councils, but the list is the same.

We are not talking about the canon. We have never been talking about the canon. This dicussion is not about the canon. I still have no clue why you are bringing this long cut and paste job into the discussion.
Since you are claiming this translation is infallible, I want to know how that occured. What translators were able to make a Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible word for word correct? When did this occur? Who were the translators?

 

[SyCarl]

The Latin Vulgate is not translated from the Septuagint. Jerome translated from the Hebrew. The declaration of the canon of Scripture by Trent does not make the Septuagint infallible as it contains books that are not included in the Catholic canon.

 

[Mannyfit75]

The Latin Vulgate is not translated from the Septuagint. Jerome translated from the Hebrew. The declaration of the canon of Scripture by Trent does not make the Septuagint infallible as it contains books that are not included in the Catholic canon.

The Canon of the CC does not have 3rd and 4th Maccabbees, and Prayer of Manasseh.

 

[Mannyfit75]

The Latin Vulgate is not translated from the Septuagint. Jerome translated from the Hebrew.

I stand corrected on that. I’m looking over the Vulgate historical background from Wiki…

 

[BrianH]

If this thread turns into a discussion of the canon, I am going to scream. It has never been about the canon. The discussion is Manny’s claim that the Septuagint is an inspired translation of the Bible according to Catholic doctrine.

 

[Mannyfit75]

BrianH,

I’m going have to cut this short. I only know the basic knowledge of the Septuagint but I don’t know enough about it to make anymore statements regarding the matter.

However, I think it would be best if you read the following book.

It’s called “An Invitation to the Septuagint.”

I have not read the Book itself, but if you wish further explore this subject. I think that book is the way to do it.

amazon.com/Invitation-Septuagint-Karen-H-Jobes/dp/080103115X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_3/103-2339836-2982234?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193973385&sr=8-3

 

[Irenicist]

I hesitate to intrude on what seems to be a private dispute, but perhaps the two of you should consider again what the Church means by "infallible, " and whether minor textual variations meaningfully affect the authority of scripture.

Unlike Islam with respect to the Koran, or LDS with respect to the Book of Mormon, the Church doesn’t teach that the authors of the biblical texts were taking proof-texted dictation from God. So unless the various versions and translations of the canonical and deutero-canonical books conflict on substantive issues of importance to your salvation that cannot be resolved by appealing to the Tradition of the early Christian Fathers, is there really an issue here?

Irenicist