Question on the LXX (Septuagint/Greek) Bible

[mcq72]

But he still printed them!

And Jerome still put in the Deuteros, prefacing his reservations ?

 

[ReaderT]

Well, according to the CC glossa ordinaria dealing with such canon we have this:

“The Prologue then catalogues the precise books which make up the Old Testament canon,125 and those of the non-canonical Apocrypha,126 all in accordance with the teaching of Jerome…nevertheless, they are very good and useful,…”

The Glossa is a collection of Biblical Commetaries by Early Christian writers. Jerome, who is mentioned there, was born in 342 and lived most of his life before the Bible was canonized. He had his opinion (as did a few who questioned Hebrews) but the Canon was settled at the Council of Carthage, and remained that way for 1,200 years until Luther came along.

Again, haven’t seen one bible with Jude and Revelation at the front.

What about Hebrews and James? Luther moved them from their original position to the end.

Also, I haven’t seen one Bible with Jude, Revelation, Hebrews and James not numbered with the rest of Scripture - except for Luther’s.

 

[adf417]

adf417:

Im not sure what is funny about this

It is the plethara of information at our fingertip, that is all…exhaustive info.

Then i guess Luther did remove the books. :man_shrugging:t3: That is certainly at our fingertips and here in this thread.

Peace!!!

 

[mcq72]

What about Hebrews and James? Luther moved them from their original position to the end.

Ate you saying their position is also infallible, settled by Carthage?..and numbering the pages?

But yes he moved Hebrews.

As to James:

“But even here there was good precedent in patristic and conciliar lists for his treatment of James. It is placed just before Jude by Philastrius (d. A.D. 387) and Augustine (d. A.D. 430), and in the lists of the Third Council of Carthage (A.D. 397) and of the Council of Trent (A.D. 1546).”

http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2015/01/luthers-view-of-canon-of-scripture.h
[/quote]

He had his opinion (as did a few who questioned Hebrews)

Yes, contemporaries like Cardinal Cartejan and Erasmus had dimilar opinions.

Again, Luther did not reject any NT book.

 

[ReaderT]

Again, Luther did not reject any NT book.

We’ll have to agree to disagree then. Regardless, neither of us can deny what he objectively did & is visible on paper, that he didn’t number them with the rest of Scripture (that’s a really curious choice, isn’t it?), said he denied their Apostolicity, and in the case of James said it contradicted the rest of the Bible.

That’ll be my final post on the topic

 

[BartholomewB]

And Jerome still put in the Deuteros, prefacing his reservations ?

Yes, he did.

 

[jaybird88]

What problem did Luther have with revelation? James taught works and Jude quotes Enoch and assumption of Moses so it makes sense why he didnt want those books. But what was in revelation that he didnt like?

 

[Bithynian]

But what was in revelation that he didnt like?

It’s useful to note that the canonical status of Revelation was in doubt amongst Eastern Christians for quite a long time. Even now, the Eastern Orthodox lectionary excludes Revelation (except, I think, the lectionary used locally in the Patriarchate of Alexandria).

Luther’s doubts about Revelation largely coincide with the historical EO doubts: the book just reads strangely, both in language and content. The idiosyncratic imagery, the atypical ambiguity, it being the sole NT text of the apocalyptic genre, etc. Revelation bookending the NT is a bit like eating a bowl of cereal and finding a hot dog at the bottom.

 

[OddBird]

It’s useful to note that the canonical status of Revelation was in doubt amongst Eastern Christians for quite a long time.

Yes. And even Eusebius of Caesarea was not too sure about it, and was pretty convinced that, at any rate, it hadn’t been written by the John of the Gospel and the Epistles, and was of dubious origin. This was due to differences in theme, in language, and to the fact that, as he says,

They [ie the Gospel and Epistles] were written not only without error as regards the Greek language, but also with elegance in their expression, in their reasonings, and in their entire structure. They are far indeed from betraying any barbarism or solecism, or any vulgarism whatever. For the writer had, as it seems, both the requisites of discourse — that is, the gift of knowledge and the gift of expression — as the Lord had bestowed them both upon him. I do not deny that the other writer saw a revelation and received knowledge and prophecy. I perceive, however, that his dialect and language are not accurate Greek, but that he uses barbarous idioms, and, in some places, solecisms.

(Church History, VII, 25, 25-26)

Can you guys give me some specifics, from a Catholic point of view, what is it about the LXX that so many protestants have issues with?

Reformed pastor here.

I wasn’t aware that there were Protestants who had such issues with the LXX, to be honest. I think part of it is probably misinformation and a lack of understanding of the history of the text of the Old Testament. Many scholars today suspect that the LXX may actually bear witness, in part, to a text which was older than the Masoretic text and whose manuscripts weren’t preserved after the Proto-Masoretic text became the only one to be authorized for synagogue reading over the course of the 1st century.

That said, I’d probably not affirm that the LXX translators weren’t pushing any kind of political agenda. They were, at least, giving a reference text to Hellenized judaism, and thus loosening the ties with Hebrew-speaking judaism and its authorities. If you read the Letter of Aristeas, relating the miracle of the translation – 72 translators in 72 houses, not in contact with each other, and coming up with the exact same text –, and more or less equating the God of the Bible with Zeus, it seems that the LXX was also quickly used with a perceivable intent of proselytizing Greek Pagans.

 

[Dovekin]

The issues for Luther are probably not theological, but historical. Were these books written by one of the Apostles? This was largely the standard for determining what went into the canon in the early centuries.

This was not as straightforward as it sounds. Peter was the authority behind Mark, Paul behind Luke. Revelation claimed John, but reads differently from his letters and gospel. James was not one of the 12, though he was a pillar of the Church in Jerusalem. Thomas, Philip and others were written by heretics, not the real apostles. Clement was not one of the 12.

Today we have no problems saying Rev is by a different John. Letters attributed to Paul, not by him, are still considered canonical. “The apostles and apostolic men” of Dei Verbum was not an acceptable standard for earlier generations.

 

[JonNC]

Luther removed these books. He also removed James and Revelations from one German edition, but other Reformers didn’t accept that, so they were added back. God willing, the Apocrypha will also be added back to Protestant Bibles one day.

Source, please.
Luther’s translation contains 74 books now and always has since its first publication in 1534.
I’ve heard the claim other reformers “talked him out it”, but I’ve never seen evidence. In fact, his commentaries seem to refute the claim.
So, if you have a source, I’d be interested.

 

[adf417]

Luther’s translation contains 74 books now and always has since its first publication in 1534.
I’ve heard the claim other reformers “talked him out it”, but I’ve never seen evidence. In fact, his commentaries seem to refute the claim.

Jon i posted this above earlier…

I just wish someone would provide a source that shows once-and-for-all how/why/when those books were removed and by what authority. This would go a much longer way in dispelling the Luther myths of the protestant canon.

The person i posed the question to ultimately told me to just google it which i thought was weird. Do you have a source that shows this and where the authority comes from?

Peace!!!

 

[JonNC]

The person i posed the question to ultimately told me to just google it which i thought was weird. Do you have a source that shows this and where the authority comes from?

By no authority that I know of.
First, I’m unwilling to say books were removed anymore than I would say they were added. I find both to be polemical statements instead of historical facts.
There has never been a universally agreed upon canon. Luther’s opinions-and that’s all they were by his own admission- are similar to those of many going back to Jerome and before. Eastern sees have also always had different canons, and ECFs we all honor had differing views.

Second, each tradition uses the books as they deem appropriate. That’s not a good thing, necessarily, but it is the way it is.

 

[JonNC]

So, there we have it. Luther classified them as uncanonical. He thought his judgment was more valuable than 1,200 years of Tradition and the Ecumenical Councils

“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.” - Cardinal Cajetan

So, there we have it. Papal Legate Cardinal Cajetan classified them as uncanonical. He thought his judgment was more valuable than 1,200 years of Tradition and the Ecumenical Councils.

In fact, they both acted on the liberty provided to Catholics prior to Trent. And Trent had no impact on Luther as he had passed away.

There have been not one truly ecumenical council declare a canon. Carthage, Hippo and Rome were local councils and Florence happened after the Great Schism meaning it’s is not truly ecumenical.

 

[adf417]

Second, each tradition uses the books as they deem appropriate. That’s not a good thing, necessarily, but it is the way it is.

Is this really acceptable to you? Do you think God approves and if not does that mean we just cannot truly know the boundaries of God’s word and thats “just the way it is”?

Peace!!!

 

[JonNC]

Is this really acceptable to you?

It isn’t. That’s why I said it’s not a good thing.
It’s been that way for virtually all of Church history, however.

Do you think God approves and if not does that mean we just cannot truly know the boundaries of God’s word and thats “just the way it is”?

Do you think I implied that?
I certainly didn’t mean to. I think it would be far more in keeping with Church unity if we all agreed on a canon.

 

[BartholomewB]

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.

The adjective “canonical” can have two different meanings.That’s a very interesting point, which I am embarrassed to admit is wholly new to me. @JonNC, do you have a reference for that quote from Cajetan? Thanks!

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

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.

The adjective “canonical” can have two different meanings.That’s a very interesting point, which I am embarrassed to admit is wholly new to me. @JonNC, do you have a reference for that quote from Cajetan? Thanks!

Sure. I’ve seen it in a few places, but James Swan has it on his Beggars All site

William Webster, The Church of Rome at the Bar of History (Carlisle, Pennsylvania: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1995), 12. Webster says also, “Cardinal Cajetan was the great opponent of Luther and one of the leading Roman Catholic scholars of his day. His commentary on the Old Testament, which was dedicated to Pope Clement VII in 1532, reflects the attitude of the Church historically and of the Roman Catholic Church of his day toward the Apocrypha just before the Council of Trent when he says that the books of the Apocrypha are not received as canonical” [William Webster, “A Refutation of the Misrepresentations of the Facts of History and of the Writings of William Webster on the Canon by Roman Catholic Apologist, Art Sippo”].

 

[adf417]

Do you think I implied that?
I certainly didn’t mean to. I think it would be far more in keeping with Church unity if we all agreed on a canon.

I apologize for inferring something not there. I just dont understand how else to receive statements like “By no authority that I know of“ and “its just the way it is”.

Peace!!!

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

Do you think I implied that?
I certainly didn’t mean to. I think it would be far more in keeping with Church unity if we all agreed on a canon.

I apologize for inferring something not there. I just dont understand how else to receive statements like “By no authority that I know of“ and “its just the way it is”.

Peace!!!

No need to apologize. I was really speaking in jest, knowing that you dialogue with integrity and charity.
I think we agree on the matter. As you know, I have no problem with the 7 DCs (except maybe 2 Macc ) and I love Prayer of Manasseh.