Questions about the Deuterocanon

[Deacon_Joseph]

At the Council of Rome in 382, the Church decided upon a canon of 46 Old Testament books and 27 in the New Testament. This decision was ratified by the councils at Hippo (393), Carthage (397, 419), II Nicea (787), Florence (1442), and Trent (1546).

Early Christians read the Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint. It included the seven deuterocanonical books.
The Catholic Old Testament follows the Alexandrian canon of the Septuagint, the Old Testament which was translated into Greek around 250 B.C. The Protestant Reformers follows the Palestinian canon of Scripture (39 books), which was not officially recognized by Jews until around 100 A.D.

Christians widely used the Septuagint. Non-Christian Jews wanted to deny the value of some of its books, such as the Book of Wisdom, which contains a profound prophecy of Christ’s death.

 

[BrianH]

Early Christians read the Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint. It included the seven deuterocanonical books.
The Catholic Old Testament follows the Alexandrian canon of the Septuagint, the Old Testament which was translated into Greek around 250 B.C. The Protestant Reformers follows the Palestinian canon of Scripture (39 books), which was not officially recognized by Jews until around 100 A.D.

.

The author of Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger refuting the still popular belief of two canons.

: The Palestinian / Alexandrian theory was first proposed by Protestants in the first decades of the eighteenth century as a possible explanation as to why Christians and Jews held two different canons. And given the amount that was known about Judaism at the time of Christ, this theory seemed quite reasonable. So much so, that not a few Catholic scholars also adopted the Alexandrian canon theory as their own. With the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls and other findings, this theory can no longer since many of its premises have been demonstrated to be inaccurate, implausible or not historical. Credit for the eventual demise of this theory goes to the Harvard biblical scholar A.C. Sundberg whose doctoral thesis on this subject exposed several of the theory’s unsubstantiated assumptions. For example:

1. The Alexandrian theory had assumed that all the disputed books were originally written in Greek so that the Hebrew speaking Palestinian Jews would not accept them. It has been demonstrated that all of the disputed books, except Wisdom and Second Maccabees, were originally written in Hebrew. Therefore, they likely originated in Palestine and not in Alexandria.

1. The strict separation of Hebrew speaking Palestine and Greek speaking Alexandria has been demonstrated to be false. Archeology has revealed that the Holy Land, and particularly Jerusalem, in the first Christian century was quite Hellenized and a large number of Jew residing in Palestine spoke Greek. Some scholars have speculated that the Septuagint may have also been read in some of the Palestinian synagogues of this period. Palestinian Jews were a bilingual people speaking Aramaic (Hebrew) and Greek.

1. The Alexandrian theory also assumes that the Greek Septuagint was the Bible of Alexandrian Jews and not those in Palestine. However, the Septuagint is known to have circulated throughout Palestine in the first century. Fragments of the Septuagint (including fragments of Tobit and Sirach) have been found at Qumran and Massada. While no definite determination can be made as to whether these fragments were used as Scripture, their presence does demonstrate that the Septuagint was known and used in and around Palestine during first century. Therefore, the New Testament writers may not have selected the LXX because it was accepted throughout the Diaspora, but perhaps because it was the text currently accepted in Palestine at that time.

1. Another piece of evidence that deserves mention is the so-called Kaige Recension. The Kaige Recension is a Greek copy of Scripture that was produced by the Pharisees in the first century BC. The text was adjusted to fit a recension of Scripture that existed prior to the fixed Hebrew text of later Rabbinical Judaism. Despite its Pharisaic origin, the Kaige Recension included the disputed Book of Baruch as well as the disputed portions of the Book of Daniel. This indicates, according to Sundberg, that the Old Testament canon (even of the Pharisees) was not fixed by the beginning of the first century.

Therefore, is it no longer possible to postulate two well-defined, separate and distinct canons (Palestine / Alexandria). The Septuagint (perhaps with the disputed books) is therefore no longer seen as the sole property of the Jews of the dispersion. The Jews in Palestine may have used it as well. In fact, the Septuagint seems to have resided in Palestine long enough to undergo a distinctive Palestinian Recension.

© 2004 by Gary Michuta

 

[adriancombe]

I’m addressing non-Catholics.

Exactly. Isn’t this proof of inspiration?

Yes and no. Certainly the fact that they predict and mirror Christ’s Passion is a good indicator. Of course the magisterium decides what is and is not canonical. :bible1:

The only caveat (the ‘no’ part) is that the NT writers did not only use the OT. In addition to the deuterocanonicals, there are references to apocrypha, pseudepigrapha, secular Greek writers and a few instances where someone says ‘it is written’ or similar phrases but there is nowhere that we can tell they could have got it from! You don’t prove inspiration by reference or citation of OT texts. God is not sola scriptura :nope: and we shouldn’t try to be either.

 

[inkaneer]

How have I skirted around an issue? I have shown Catholic sources that indicate that the canon was in flux. I have clearly stated that the contents cannot be proven or disproven. As far as “original” LXX, what are you contending exactly about when that occured?

So what if the OT canon was in flux? The same is true for the New Testament canon too. But the fact remains that after 400 AD there was no “flux”. The church made the decision on what books were in the OT and which were in the NT. For 1100 years there was one canon and that canon included the deuteros. Maybe we should ask you by what authority did protestants remove the deuteros from their canon. Did they take the decision of anti christian jews over the decision of the christian church? WHY??? To protect threir doctrine of sola fide maybe?

 

[inkaneer]

In 2 Tim 3:16, St. Paul says that all scripture is inspired by God. Weren’t the Deuterocanonical books considered scripture at that point?

Going back to the original question as posed. My answer is this. At the time 2 Timothy was written the canon of scripture [both NT as well as OT] was not closed. Therefore until the time that the canon was closed in the late fourth century there were competing versions of which books were inspired. All of that changed once the canon was set by the church. That being said it is also worth mentioning that books determined to be inspired did not receive their inspiration in the late fourth century but were inspired from their origin. Thus the deuteros were inspired from their creation even if they were not considered to be inspired in some quarters.

 

[BrianH]

Going back to the original question as posed. My answer is this. At the time 2 Timothy was written the canon of scripture [both NT as well as OT] was not closed. Therefore until the time that the canon was closed in the late fourth century there were competing versions of which books were inspired…

Excellent.

 

[stephraim]

scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html

This has some good material from Scripture and quotes from the Early Church Fathers of the Deuteros. Please forgive its condescending tone, though.

 

[BrianH]

scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html

This has some good material from Scripture and quotes from the Early Church Fathers of the Deuteros. Please forgive its condescending tone, though.

No. This link is horrible. In fact, it is either sloppy or lying…ouch
However, the quote Randy gave that looks at the 10-11 possible allusions and maybe a few quotes is excellent.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Randy I quoted the book you told me to look up in post number 17! The book you asked me to look up supports my view. I will give the quote again and we can use it to reference the state of the canon so to speak in 50 AD. The weight of scholarship is that there was not a set canon in 50 AD and that different groups supported different books and that the LXX was in “flux”. Like I said earlier, I am only using Catholic sources on this and if need be we can also look at some more contemporary scholarship on the issue.

Oh…I understand now (I think).

It is your position that because the Jewish canon was in flux in 50AD, and we cannot know with certainty what books were contained in the Septuagint. And if we cannot know what was in the Septuagint, then we cannot state with certainty that the canon accepted by the early Church in the fourth century was the right set of books.

Have I stated your position correctly?

 

[BrianH]

Oh…I understand now (I think).

It is your position that because the Jewish canon was in flux in 50AD, and we cannot know with certainty what books were contained in the Septuagint. And if we cannot know what was in the Septuagint, then we cannot state with certainty that the canon accepted by the early Church in the fourth century was the right set of books.

Have I stated your position correctly?

No but I never gave my position on 400 AD. I was only commenting on whether the Deuterocanonical books can be proven to be in the LXX in 50 AD. The question dealt with the “all” in Paul’s famous words and whether that can historically be applied to that time. The OP and the scope of the question did not get into 400 AD.

 

[Randy_Carson]

No but I never gave my position on 400 AD. I was only commenting on whether the Deuterocanonical books can be proven to be in the LXX in 50 AD. The question dealt with the “all” in Paul’s famous words and whether that can historically be applied to that time. The OP and the scope of the question did not get into 400 AD.

“All”?

As in, “all have sinned”?

 

[BrianH]

In 2 Tim 3:16, St. Paul says that all scripture is inspired by God. Weren’t the Deuterocanonical books considered scripture at that point?

The OP.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The OP.

Ah. Well, I stand by my opinion that Timothy was a Greek and as such would have been familiar with the Septuagint which included the Deuterocanonical books.

 

[Chris_S_1]

So I get the sense from reading the responses that it can’t be proven what books were contained in the Septuagint that Paul used. So anyone, whether Catholic or Protestant, who cites some source that claims one way or another is leaving out a lot of scholarship?

 

[BrianH]

So I get the sense from reading the responses that it can’t be proven what books were contained in the Septuagint that Paul used. So anyone, whether Catholic or Protestant, who cites some source that claims one way or another is leaving out a lot of scholarship?

I believe so. People love certainity and this would be a slam dunk for either side. Primary sources from that era are lacking.

 

[VerumAdInfernos]

The LXX, that probably most early Christians used, appears to be a very fluid document in terms of what books were part of it and when. I think most scholars would admit we simply do not know.

False most scholars secular and theologians alike will actually admit that the Septuagint was used. This is evident as it has been proven through the historic fact the early Church used the Septuagint, and also the NT writers quote from Septuagint over 90% of the time. Those who accept the 39 OT books as canon use the same canon as rabbinical Jews who rejected Christ, a sad mistake.

 

[VerumAdInfernos]

(Cont…)

Protestant and Catholic Bibles differ there is no question about that. Another argument against Sola Scriptura is that most Protestant versions of the Bible are historically inadequate, I shall elaborate.

 A Catholic Bible has "more books" than a Protestant Bible. While each NT has the same amount of books the Catholic Old Testament has 46 whereas the Protestant version has 39, why? Many Protestants will claim the CC added seven books to the OT: Wisdom, Sirach, Judith, Baruch, Tobit, and 1 2 Maccabees and parts of Daniel and Esther. Actually a one, Martin Luther departed from 1500 years of Christian tradition and subtracted these books. These missing books are called the Deuterocanonicals or in Protestant circles, "The Apocrypha". Now CAF'ers in Christ's day the OT had NOT been determined. Different groups in Palestine honored different canons of Scripture. The Sadducees for example held that only the Pentateuch or the first five books of the Bible (Gen-Deut) were canon. The Samaritans the same with their own versions. The Pharisees had a canonical tradition roughly the same as the Protestant one today though the boundaries were not set. The authors of the Dead Sea Scrolls considered a few more books Scriptural however. Finally you had some Jews who honored a canonical tradition that is best represented today in the Septuagint translation of the OT. This Greek translation was made between 250-125 B.C. and is called Septuagint because of the number of translators that compiled it. Septuagint coming from the Latin word for 70. They compiled it's Pentateuch according to tradition.

 The real question in play here CAF'ers is which canon did Christ and His apostles use? In the time of Jesus, Hebrew as a language was dead, Palestinian Jews spoke Aramaic as many know and Greek was the common tongue. Not suprisingly the NT writers used the Greek Septuagint. According to Protestant authors, Gleason Archer and G.C. Chirichigno, the VAST majority of quotes in the NT are from the Septuagint but only 33 places does it cite the Hebrew canon. SOURCE: Gleason Arhcer and G.C. Chirichigno, Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament: A Complete Survey (Chicago, IL, Moody Press, 1983) xxv-xxxii. 
 Guess what CAF'ers?, that means that OVER 90% of the time by that count, the NT writers quoted the Septuagint, and remember the entire NT was written in Greek.

Now in 1529 Martin Luther proposed to adopt the canon used by rabbinic Judaism of 39 books as OT canon, Luther justified this by citing the concerns of St. Jerome. However UNLIKE St. Jerome who humbly submitted his opinon in private and accepted full authority of the Church, Luther arrogantly challanged them and made his opinion public, maybe Luther forgot humility with all the Penance he was so famous for?

Another REAL question fellow CAF’ers is this, Which OT canon would you rather use, the OT used by the apostles and the NT writers, and the early Church, OR, the OT used by the later Jewish peoples who rejected Christ? If your Bible includes the seven books, you follow the apostles amd the other NT writers and the early Church. If your Bible omits them, you follow the NON-CHRISTIAN rabbis and Martin Luther, a man whose view of Sacred Scripture allowed him to deliberately add the word “alone” to his German translation of Romans 3:28. in an attempt to throw out even more books of the Bible, including Esther, Revelation!!!=O and EVEN JAMES??? Which he dismissed as “an epistle of straw”. SOURCE: Stoddard’s Rebuilding a Lost Faith (Rockford, IL: TAN Books, 1990), 137

Glory be to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, may God bless her and grant us strength to be great Apologists in her favor. God bless, you all, God bless the Church, and God bless Catholicism,…Verum out.

Again dear scholars and CAF’ers I make reference to a post that I posted on the thread “Another Nail in the Coffin For Sola Scriptura…” This should clear up some of these issues and provide scholarly proof for the claims made. Not to mention I am citing PROTESTANT sources here, NOT CATHOLIC ones, thus there is no Catholic bias in this research.

 

[VerumAdInfernos]

I believe so. People love certainity and this would be a slam dunk for either side. Primary sources from that era are lacking.

A primary source from which era? Is it not enough that the early Church taught and used the Septuagint? What more PROOF is needed. These books are Scripture this really shouldn’t be a debate any longer it’s like beating a dead horse.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

In 2 Tim 3:16, St. Paul says that all scripture is inspired by God. Weren’t the Deuterocanonical books considered scripture at that point?

Also, the book of Wisdom contains a detailed prophesy about Christ’s Passion:

Given that Wisdom was written 100-200 years before the Passion, how could this text NOT be inspired? Is it a lucky guess?

I always thought it odd that our “Brothers of the Book,” the various Protestant congregations, excluded the Deuteros from their canon.

Supposedly, Criteria #1 for exclusion was, “Did Jesus make use of the book?”

There is good evidence that Jesus made massive use of Wisdom and Sirach, and that He had these books memorized. Tobit and Judith are clearly both inspired – they are typological masterpieces. 1 Maccabees and 2 Maccabees are also typological, indicating inspiration. I have not yet studied Baruch.

 

[SemperReformada]

False most scholars secular and theologians alike will actually admit that the Septuagint was used. This is evident as it has been proven through the historic fact the early Church used the Septuagint, and also the NT writers quote from Septuagint over 90% of the time. Those who accept the 39 OT books as canon use the same canon as rabbinical Jews who rejected Christ, a sad mistake.

Please tell us exactly which books made up the LXX that Jesus and the apostles used and please explain how you came to this knowledge.