Protestant vs Catholic/Orthodox OT

[MarkR]

Wish I had Father Packwa’s direct line for whenever this type of thing comes up.

I’m in a “discussion” on a pretty prominent political site about which Old Testament is more accurate and, of course, it revolves around the “deuterocanonical” books.

Before I go plunging in (I’m known to do that), I want to make sure I’ve got my facts straight and maybe have them fleshed out a bit.

In a “nutshell”, my understanding is this–

1\ Our (the Catholic/Orthodox) OT is from the Septuagint translation which included the “deuterocanonical” books that Luther and the Prots removed. That translation was used by most Jews during the time of Christ and most probably by Christ Himself, although not all Jewish “parties” at the time may have used it.

2\ The Dead Sea Scrolls–our oldest surviving manuscript–includes at least some of the “deuterocanonical” books (Maccabees for one), proving they were in wide circulation at and before the time of Christ. The Scrolls were found in what was an Essene community (those who were the most devoted to the immanent arrival of the Messiah) to which John the Baptist (probably) and possibly Christ Himself had ties.

3\ There was no “official” Jewish canon of scriptures at and before the time of Christ. The “deuterocanonical” books were officially removed by Rabbinic Jews around the year 200 AD, after the destruction of the temple, largely to distance themselves from anything Greek or Roman and partially to distance themselves from Christians who retained those books.

4\ From the time of the earliest Christians until the 1500s, those books were included in the canon. To me, this alone seals the deal if true. They probably think the books were “added” in the Middle Ages.

Then of course there are the reasons Luther had the books removed, mainly to push across his “jihad” against Purgatory, etc.

That’s pretty much where my knowledge of the subject stands. Point 3 is what I’m least sure about.

Again, if anyone can tell me if the above is accurate or can add anything I’m missing, I’d appreciate it. I could have added that many of the Apostles were named after figures from Maccabees (Simon, Judas, etc).

Good people on the site I’m talking about–Catholics and Evangelicals mostly, some Jews–and we rarely get into “squabbles”, but the Evangelicals will post things like “Of course, the Protestant OT is closer to the Hebrew scriptures” as though that’s a given every now and then. It’s not done maliciously! They’re just conditioned to taking that as a fact and thinking that even Catholics agree about this.

Anyway, any help would be appreciated. A link to a good source/sources would be great too.

 

[capablanca911]

That’s a pretty good!

I would add that there was the Sadducee canon (only the 5 books of Moses) that was also the Samaritan canon. There was the Pharisee canon (See Josephus’s list) that matches the Prot OT canon, and then there was the canon of the diaspora Greeks with the Deuterocanonicals.

I would start by asking your friend why he thinks that he should follow experts who rejected the Word of God (Jesus) for determining the word of God (Bible).

All discussions of canon must begin and end with: No Christian used the **exact **Prot canon for the first 1500 years of Christianity (that I know of). Some are very very close (a book shy, usually Ester or Lamentations–or a book extra because Greek Jeremiah included Baruch).

catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2009/10/protestantism-and-early-church-fathers.html

 

[TK421]

It has a lot more to do with taking books out because of the mention of purgation in Maccabees. Tobit, Wisdom, and Ben Sira all have a strong emphasis on corporal charity and free will, which Luther did not like since he was pushing the “once saved always saved, good works mean nothing” envelop. This became all the more enhanced with Calvin, who was essentially (probably unknowingly) parroting medieval Islamic scholars on the complete lack of the human faculty in responding to God (aka 5-point Calvinism). Creation was reduced to a consortium of animated toys being pushed here and there by an arbitrary God.

 

[capablanca911]

Addendum: I would also ask why the follow the Pharisee canon of today, and not the canon of the G’eez in the diaspora (that includes all the Catholic extras plus even more). Does the Bible alone say to follow the Pharisee canon?

And too if it helps, there’s good evidence that when Jesus is quoting from Daniel, He does so not from the LXX but from Theodotion’s version of Daniel. (that version includes Susanna, Dragon story, and the prayer of Azariah).

books.google.com/books?id=h5e2gO7a274C&lpg=PA476&dq=new%20Testament%20quotes%20theodotion&pg=PA476#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

[bzkoss236]

I would like to add (in fairness), that Luther did not remove the deuterocanonical books, but moved them between the OT and NT in an ‘appendix’. He also moved Hebrews and the Epistle of James to the back of the NT next to Jude and Revelation, considering them to be less valuable calling James “an epistle of straw” and saying that he didn’t see anything that would indicate to him that it was the inspired word of God. He also added the word ‘alone’ (in German) to Romans 3:28 so that it said “So now we hold, that man is justified through faith alone, apart from works of the law.”

The NT books were later moved back into their original place, but the OT deuterocanonical books stayed in an ‘appendix’. It wasn’t until some time later that they were removed from Protestant Bibles.

 

[Publisher]

The Orthodox “canon” is longer still than the Catholic “canon”. When did Catholics remove books from the canon since the Orthodox “canon” is longer and the Catholic “canon” wasn’t determined until Trent, mostly in raction to the Reformation.

 

[bzkoss236]

The Orthodox “canon” is longer still than the Catholic “canon”. When did Catholics remove books from the canon since the Orthodox “canon” is longer and the Catholic “canon” wasn’t determined until Trent, mostly in raction to the Reformation.

The Catholic Canon hasn’t changed since the fourth century.

 

[capablanca911]

Technically, yes and no.

Orthodox Bibles have Έσδράς Αˊwhich the Latins would call Third Esdras and not include in their Bibles.

But it’s not as simple as saying they have an extra book because Greek 1 Esdras AKA Esdras A AKA Esdras 3 is almost entirely what the Hebrew bible would call Ezra, and is a copy of half of Greek Esdras B also known as 1 Esdras. There’s a block of unique text in Chapter 4, but that really doesn’t make it a different book than Ezra any more than one manuscript that includes the Woman Taken In Adultery (the Pericope Adulterae) and another doesn’t. We don’t call them Gospel of John A and Gospel of John B. But for this unique difference in division between Ezra and Nehemiah by the Masoretes, by the Latin Christians, and the Greek Christians, they call them different books even though the text is almost identicial.

Shew.

And if you think that’s confusing, you should look at the chart!

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esdras

Now, the Ethiopian Orthodox have multiple books in their canon and the Catholics don’t have!

But they aren’t Chalcedonian so I wouldn’t really include them with ‘Orthodox.’

Their OT canon follows the canon of the G’eez, the Ethiopian Jews of the Diaspora.

 

[capablanca911]

The Orthodox “canon” is longer still than the Catholic “canon”. When did Catholics remove books from the canon since the Orthodox “canon” is longer and the Catholic “canon” wasn’t determined until Trent, mostly in raction to the Reformation.

The Bible canon of Trent is identical to Carthage.

Now, to be fair, there was a lot of debate about Scripture.

Is all ‘Scripture’ *canonical *Scripture? Are there different *degrees *of canonical?

That wasn’t **just **a response to Protestant’s getting a little trigger happy with their scissors: Catholics from Rufinus of Aquila to Cardinal Cajetan to the glosses [falsely?] attributed to Strabo all made some sort of claim that the deutero’s weren’t of equal weight as the others. Trent was doubling down of its council 1000 years before that, saying ‘Yes, we meant exactly what we said. The Deuterocanon is canonical Scripture just like the others!’

Does that clear it up?

 

[pablope]

Wish I had Father Packwa’s direct line for whenever this type of thing comes up.

I’m in a “discussion” on a pretty prominent political site about which Old Testament is more accurate and, of course, it revolves around the “deuterocanonical” books.

Before I go plunging in (I’m known to do that), I want to make sure I’ve got my facts straight and maybe have them fleshed out a bit.

In a “nutshell”, my understanding is this–

1\ Our (the Catholic/Orthodox) OT is from the Septuagint translation which included the “deuterocanonical” books that Luther and the Prots removed. That translation was used by most Jews during the time of Christ and most probably by Christ Himself, although not all Jewish “parties” at the time may have used it.

 

[pablope]

The Bible canon of Trent is identical to Carthage.

Now, to be fair, there was a lot of debate about Scripture.

Is all ‘Scripture’ *canonical *Scripture? Are there different *degrees *of canonical?

?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=809279&page=2

email from Gary Michuta, w

The Canon and the Council
Refuting the Argument that Canon was not established until the Council of Trent
By Gary Michuta

Today, some Protestants are arguing that Luther did not subtract books from the Canon of Scripture, because the canon was not officially adopted until the Council of Trent which began in 1545. Since the canon was not formally recognized prior to Luther’s rejection of the Deuterocanonicals, it is not correct to say that he subtracted books from the Bible.

This type of argument is quickly beginning to become a favorite among our separated brethren. They want to divert attention away from how these books were accepted within Christianity and focus instead on technical language in regards to their definition by the Church.

The fact of the matter is that even if something like the definition given at Trent had happened before Luther’s day, Luther would have rejected it as being in error, and Protestants wouldn’t have abandoned Luther because of his position any more than they abandoned Luther when he brushed aside other councils. In other words, this argument really isn’t about the legitimacy of the Protestant position, but rather it is a form of propaganda to make it look like the Church is dishonest.

However, what about the claim? Here is my two cents on the matter: After St. Jerome became the first Christian to cause a major stir by attempting to reject the Deuterocanon as Apocrypha, there were a series of local councils that met in North Africa to reaffirm the Christian Old Testament and New Testament. These were the councils of Hippo (393), Carthage I (397), and Carthage IV (419). All three of these reaffirmed the Catholic canon as canonical and divine Scripture. However, they were local councils that were confirmed by the Pope. Therefore, they were authoritatively defined but not with the solemnity of that of an Ecumenical Council. You must remember, however, that solemnity does not effect the authority of the definition given. Usually Ecumenical Councils met to address something that has disturbed the universal Church. By the end of the fourth century, Jerome’s views had caused trouble mainly in North Africa. Regardless of their solemnity these councils are the first to authoritatively define the canon. After them, Innocent I (417) was questioned by a bishop as to the canon and Innocent’s reply repeats the decree of Hippo / Carthage. This is the first Papal decision on the canon. There were a series of decrees attributed to Popes Damasus, Gelasius, and Hormisdas between 266-523 that also reaffirmed the canon as well. By the end of the ninth century, Pope Innocent I could write to the bishops of Gaul (modern day France) that the letter of Pope Innocent I on the canon was the “universal law of the Church.” To this, we could add that there are about a dozen local and regional councils (not to mention popes) during this period who issued decrees that quoted the Deutero’s to confirm doctrine and with the formal introduction normally given to Scripture showing that the issue was largely settled and that bishops throughout the world were confident in appealing to these texts.

Probably the most important council to bring up is the Council of Florence, which promulgated a decreed on canon of Scripture on Feb. 4, 1441. Florence’s decree states that the Catholic canon is given by the Holy Spirit and the Church accepts and venerates them. In terms of solemnity, this decree is greater than the previous ones. However, in terms of authority it is just as authoritative as the rest.

In 1519, Johann Eck debated Luther and pointed out to him that the Church had already confirmed that the Deuterocanon was canonical Scripture and he explicitly cited Florence as a proof of this. What was Luther’s response? Was it that the Church has authoritatively defined the canon yet so everything is still up for grabs? This is what the Protestant historian H. H. Howorth says about what Luther said:

“He [Luther] says he knows that he Church had accepted this book [2 Maccabees], but the Church could not give a greater authority and strength to a book than it already possessed by its own virtue.” (Gary Michuta, Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger, p. 251).

So, Luther knew the Church accepted the Deuterocanon as canonical Scripture. He was aware of Florence and the other decrees (apparently), but by this point he believed that Church councils could err. Moreover, Luther seems to have been working on a principle that he would more explicitly develop a few years later; namely, that a book is canonical and authoritative to the extent that Luther heard “Christ preached” in it.

Now what about Trent? Why do all these sources say that it wasn’t until Trent that we had a definitive decision on the canon? First, the fathers at Trent decided early on to adopt the canon of Florence without comment. For them, the issue was already closed in previous councils. However, since some otherwise solid Catholics have seem to adopted Jerome’s views on the Deuterocanonicals over and against these previous councils something more was necessary to drive the point home that the matter has already been closed hundreds of years early. So, Trent attached an anathema to its decree on the canon. Trent wasn’t the first council or Church authority to define the canon, but it was the first to anathematize those who did not follow the canon. In terms of the authority of the canon, nothing was really changed, but the solemnity of Trent’s definition was, because of the anathema, far greater than any previous council.

 

[pablope]

The Bible canon of Trent is identical to Carthage.

Now, to be fair, there was a lot of debate about Scripture.

Is all ‘Scripture’ *canonical *Scripture? Are there different *degrees *of canonical?

That wasn’t **just **a response to Protestant’s getting a little trigger happy with their scissors: Catholics from Rufinus of Aquila to Cardinal Cajetan to the glosses [falsely?] attributed to Strabo all made some sort of claim that the deutero’s weren’t of equal weight as the others. Trent was doubling down of its council 1000 years before that, saying ‘Yes, we meant exactly what we said. The Deuterocanon is canonical Scripture just like the others!’

Does that clear it up?

As for Cardinal Cajetan:

This is what he says:

"Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith.

Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage."

 

[capablanca911]

I can’t tell if you are disagreeing with me or not?

 

[MarkR]

Whoa! A lot of replies and a lot of ammunition. Going to go through them all when I get home from work. Thanks!

Question about one of the comments–if the Catholic OT is based on the scriptures used by the Jews of the Diaspora, why do the Dead Sea Scrolls contain Maccabbees and other Dueterocanonical segments? The Quamram community–the Essenes–were close to Jerusalem. To me that means that many in Judea proper considered the Dueterocanonical books valid. I believe that the Essenes and the ruling Pharisetical and Sadducean groups didn’t see eye to eye on many things, such as the Temple. Many Essenes and a good number of Pharasees converted to Christianity and that might be another reason the books were removed after the destruction of the Temple. Must have seemed as though the Christians were waxing as they were waning and they wanted clear distinctions. That’s just me speaking though.

I appreciate the replies!

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Some of your information is correct or partially correct, but a lot of it is false.

1\ Our (the Catholic/Orthodox) OT is from the Septuagint translation

No. The Catholic and Orthodox Old Testament(s) are not the same. Catholic OTs published now are based on the Hebrew Bible (Masoretic Text–not the Greek Septuagint) plus the Deuterocanonical books. If Catholics used a Bible based on the Septuagint, it would look more like this in content and translation:

amazon.com/Orthodox-Study-Bible-Ancient-Christianity/dp/0718003594/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1374882798&sr=1-1&keywords=orthodox+study+bible

(Take a particular look at the table of contents.)

Prior to the mid-twentieth century, Catholic translations were based on the Latin Vulgate translation.

… which included the “deuterocanonical” books that Luther and the Prots removed.

Partially true. As others have already pointed out, Luther did not remove the deuterocanonical books but put them in a separate section between the OT and NT. Their removal didn’t come along until the 19th century but this was indeed done by Protestants. I’m not sure why you’re putting deuterocanonical in scare quotes since this is Catholic terminology.

That translation was used by most Jews during the time of Christ and most probably by Christ Himself, although not all Jewish “parties” at the time may have used it.

Hard to say but probably not true. While many Jews lived within Greek speaking areas of the Roman Empire, particularly in places like Alexandria in Egypt, there were also vast numbers of non-Greek speaking Jews living in places like Baghdad and in the various cities of Persia—who would have been Aramaic speakers/readers and would have read the Bible in Aramaic translation. I’m guessing if one had a census from the time there would be more Aramaic speakers/readers (Jews) at the time of Jesus than Greek speakers, but we don’t have access to those kinds of records. Any Palestinian Jewish literature from around this time is either in Aramaic or Rabbinic Hebrew.

I don’t know of any N.T. scholars that argue that Jesus was a fluent Greek speaker–but it’s impossible to know.

2\ The Dead Sea Scrolls–our oldest surviving manuscript–includes at least some of the “deuterocanonical” books (Maccabees for one)

No copies or fragments of Maccabees have been found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. There are fragments from the books of Sirach, Tobit and Baruch. To the extent the texts are found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, they would indeed be the oldest surviving copies.

proving they were in wide circulation at and before the time of Christ.

All this proves is that the people living at Qumran had copies. They also had other religious writings (copies of Enoch and Jubilees for example) that are considered canonical by other Churches but not the Catholic Church. So this doesn’t seem like a very good argument for canonicity unless you’re arguing, say, for the Ethiopian Orthodox canon.

The Scrolls were found in what was an Essene community (those who were the most devoted to the immanent arrival of the Messiah)

Probably true.

to which John the Baptist (probably) and possibly Christ Himself had ties.

Maybe.

There was no “official” Jewish canon of scriptures at and before the time of Christ.

True, most likely.

The “deuterocanonical” books were officially removed by Rabbinic Jews around the year 200 AD, after the destruction of the temple, largely to distance themselves from anything Greek or Roman and partially to distance themselves from Christians who retained those books.

False/no evidence. Since the book (bound codex) hadn’t been invented yet, there was nothing to “remove” these books from. Also, there’s no evidence to support the theory of such a “removal” by Rabbinic Jews. Such a theory also supposes that someone within Judaism had sufficient authority to make such a ruling, which clearly wasn’t the case.

From the time of the earliest Christians until the 1500s, those books were included in the canon. To me, this alone seals the deal if true.

True for the most part. There are various threads you can look at that discuss how certain books seem to have floated in and out of the canon. But for the most part yes.

They probably think the books were “added” in the Middle Ages.

Who is “they”?

Then of course there are the reasons Luther had the books removed, mainly to push across his “jihad” against Purgatory, etc.

Mostly false, as others have already pointed out. Luther had various critiques of various books but didn’t remove anything.

“Of course, the Protestant OT is closer to the Hebrew scriptures”

Since the canon for most Protestants equals the canon of the Hebrew Bible, that’s correct–but seems a nonsensical way to argue for a particular canon.