Septuagint books

  • Thread starter Thread starter DictatorCzar
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes I scanned it in From a Protestant NIV Bible.
I just added the blackened part after Revelation, Consistent with Their argument
 
Last edited:
JohnR77 said:
See Prophetic verses in Deuterocanonical Books
Click to expand...
Catholics don’t accept the entire collection as scripture as what is in the Protestant apocrypha. 3 and 4 Esdras( more commonly known as 1 and 2 Esdras today) and the Prayer of Manasseh , although in the Vulgate appendix and the Douay Rheims bible until 1752 were never considered scripture by the Church. They more so are considered like what the entire collection with the deuterocanonical books and these three are to Protestants, worthy to be read for way of life but not for making doctrine.
It is just interesting because the link in the article about the apocrypha in the KJV uses a verse from 2 Esdras chapter 14 to almost make a point about Catholics however the Church doesn’t even consider that book as canon. That’s ironic sort of. But yes that chapter has historically been used to explain why some books are considered hidden to the public, because after Ezra copies the books he is told,
And when the forty days were ended, the Most High spoke to me, saying, “Make public the twenty-four books that you wrote first, and let the worthy and the unworthy read them; but keep the seventy that were written last, in order to give them to the wise among your people. For in them is the spring of understanding, the fountain of wisdom, and the river of knowledge.”
2 Esdras 14:45‭-‬47 NRSV-CI

I think that is where the thought that it is 70 books may have come from…
 
Last edited:
Thomasbradley312 said:
It is just interesting because the link in the article about the apocrypha in the KJV uses a verse from 2 Esdras chapter 14 to almost make a point about Catholics however the Church doesn’t even consider that book as canon.
Click to expand...
Hi.

Forgive me, but i am having a hard time following your post.

Maybe, i am just a little too sleepy.

Can you please send the URL of the article to which you are referring?

And an exact quote referring to “2 Esdras chapter 14” ?

Thanks,

John
 
Thomasbradley312 said:
"Apocrypha" What is its Meaning ?
Click to expand...
Thanks.

I reproduced that page because that site was down.

It offer supplemental information.

But to quote the main article on my page at

https://www.defendingthebride.com/bb/deuterocanonical.html#cath

We read in the New Catholic Encyclopedia

“It was believed for a time that the collection of OT books was fixed conclusively by Ezra. The proponents of this theory relied largely on the apocryphal 4 Ezra 14.19-48, written c. A.D. 90, about 500 years after Ezra lived. But when carefully examined this passage does little more than ascribe to Ezra some role in the preservation of the OT texts. It does not unequivocally affirm that he was the final arbiter of the OT cannon.”

“At another time it was believed that the OT canon was determined by Ezra together with his associates, ‘the men of the Great Synagogue.’”…

“The very existence of the Great Synagogue, to say nothing of its alleged canonizing function, is open to question. One grave objection to its existence is the complete silence about it in the OT itself, as well as in Josephus, Philo and the Apocrypha. The earliest reference to such a group is in the Mishnaic treatise, Pirke Avoth (c,1), which dates only from the 2d or 3d Christian century…”

“All too commonly it is assumed that great differences of opinion divided Palestinian Jews from those of the Dispersion and that the differences sprang from divergent theories of inspiration prevalent in Alexandria and Jerusalem. This is a purely gratuitous inference [see Peter Katz, ZNTWiss 47 (1956) 209]. The Hellenistic Jews before the fall of the theocracy in Palestine looked reverently toward Jerusalem and favored religious currents coming from it. Doubts were referred there for solution (Josephus, Contra Apion 1.30-36). They turned to Jerusalem for their Scriptures (2 Mc 2.13-15) and for its translation [Est 11.1 (Vulg); 10.31 (LXX)]. If they used the Deuterocanonical books in the Diaspora, it was because they had received them from Palestine… Palestine, then, was the source of the esteem for the Deuterocanonical works. The OT, as it is found in the LXX, reflects, therefore, a tradition older than the present Hebrew Bible in regard to its list of sacred books…”

“An examination of the NT use of the OT shows that the NT writers had the same broad view of the sacred books as the Hellenist and Qumran Jews had of them. The NT writers knew and used a fuller collection that included the so-called Deuterocanonical books. The OT of the early Church was not the Masoretic Text (MT), but the Septuagint (LXX), which contained the Deuterocanonical as well as the protocanonical books. In the LXX the former were not, as in some later versions, relegated to a limbo of doubt by being grouped together in a place apart. Rather, they were interspersed throughout the whole OT and assigned to places where they seemed best to fit…”
 
Last edited:
part 2.

“Doubts began to develop in the East in the 4th century. These doubts seem to have emerged as an aftermath of the Christian polemic with the Jews. Since the Jews from the time of the Synod of Jamnia no longer recognized the Deuterocanonical literature, it would have been futile for Christian apologists to make use of them. Justin Martyr says this expressly (Dial. Tryphon). These hesitations gradually evolved into misgivings about the canonicity itself of the books…”

“M. Jugie has shown conclusively that from the earliest times through the Middle Ages there was general agreement in the Byzantine Church that the disputed books were canonical.”

I hope this helps.

John
 
My understanding is that it did.

Actually Jesus Himself when asked by the Sadducees Mark 12:18 about a wife married several times it comes from the Deuterocanonical books and Jesus does not dismiss it as a legend or untrue.

Many early Church fathers considered them as Sacred Scripture.
 
Last edited:
And this is what it says in the old online Jewish Encyclopedia:

Seventh Vision (xiv.): The restoration of the Scripture. Esdras, sitting under an oak, is addressed by God from a bush and told that he will soon be translated; he asks for the restoration of the Law; God commands him to procure many tablets and five scribes and to tell the people to stay away for forty days. Esdras does so, and, after having received a wondrous drink, begins to dictate. Within forty days are written ninety-four books, of which twenty-four, that is, the Hebrew canon, are to be published and seventy to be kept secret. Esdras’ translation is found only in the Oriental versions; in the Latin it has been omitted, because ch. xv. and xvi. were added. […]

Date and Value.

Since the eagle in the fifth vision undoubtedly represents the Roman empire, most critics agreeing that the three heads are Vespasian, Titus, and Domitian, and since the destruction of Jerusalem so often referred to must be that by Titus in 70 C.E., the book must date from the last quarter of the first century—probably between 90 and 96.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/5852-esdras-books-of
 
Last edited:
JohnR77 said:
Without that guidance there is no authority to define the above.
( except of course yourself but where in the Bible does it say that you personally have the authority to decide what criteria you should use to determine the answers to the above questions ?)
Click to expand...
Depending on your view of the Holy Spirit, you could use the example of Huldah verifying the Hebrew scriptures to justify the presence of that authority among all who have the Holy Spirit. Personally I view the Holy Spirit as acting with and in the Body of Christ, so I do not see it as an individual mandate. But it is a mandate for recognizing the Scriptures because you have heard God speaking in them, and not just because others have told you that God speaks in them.
“Go, consult the LORD for me and for those who are left in Israel and Judah, about the words of the book that has been found, for the anger of the LORD burns furiously against us, because our ancestors did not keep the word of the LORD and have not done all that is written in this book.”
Then Hilkiah and others from the king went to Huldah the prophet, wife of Shallum, son of Tokhath, son of Hasrah, keeper of the wardrobe; she lived in Jerusalem, in the Second Quarter. They spoke to her as they had been instructed.
2 Chronicles 34:21-22
Click to expand...
 
The image is titled “Protestant River of Inspiration” if you mouse over it.
 
It’s a good book.
It used to be in an appendix after the Old Testament in the Douay Rheims Bible. Challoner in 1752 though removed it along with many of the notes and tables in order to make room so it could fit in one volume. To bad in today’s world noone will rereleased the pre Challoner version. It has so much wonderful information. Also it was in an appendix to the Clementine Vulgate which was the official Vulgate of the Church until late last century.

 
What about the dating to the nineties AD? Is that still what the specialists think nowadays?
 
2 Esdras( or 4 traditionally in Catholicism) is probably written somewhere in the years of 70-100 A.D. in a strictly speaking historic scholarly way. The chapters of 3-14 are the original and are called 4 Ezra by scholars. Chapters 1-2, and 15-16 are later Latin additions that seem to have been written by Christians in the second or third centuries. Chapter 1-2 scholars call 5 Ezra and chapter 15-16 they call 6 Ezra.
This is historical and not a faith thing.
I mean most scholars say Isaiah was written by different authors. I think three, at different times.
It doesn’t mean it isn’t canon, the inspired author does not need to be the specific author. Also the way a lot of scholars determine dating of books I don’t like. For example if you listen to them, 2 Peter was written by some unknown early Christian in around 120 A.D.
As for 2 Esdras, I wouldn’t argue it is scripture in the same sense other books in the Bible are, but it is clear since it was included in the Vulgate and the original Douay Rheims through the centuries , the Church at least promoted the reading of 1(or 3) Esdras, 2(or 4) Esdras, and the Prayer of Manasseh.
Actually that public prayer we use in liturgy on All Souls Day and masses for the dead is taken from 2 Esdras chapter 2:34-35.Eternal rest grant unto them oh Lord and let perpetual light shine upon them.
 
Thank you, Thomas. It wasn’t my intention to ask you to do so much research. My apologies for that!
 
Oh of course. I studied the biblical canon in college.
It is fascinating.
It can be anywhere from the 66 books of Protestants to the 81 books of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church.
 
Actually, the term “the Law and the Prophets” was not limited to the first and second “divisions” of the OT. It also included what later came to be known as “the Writings.” For example, the term is used in the NT to describe the book of Job and the book of Daniel, which were later included in that third “division.” So when Jesus and the NT writers used the term “the Law and the Prophets,” they were using it as a metonym to encompass the entire OT, not just the first two divisions.
 
I heard the same thing about the late dating of 2 Peter. The main argument for it being written in the second century is because no second century ECF mentions it. But that didn’t mean it wasn’t written before then. The strongest evidence for a first century writing by St. Peter is from St. Jude’s epistle. In it, he cites 2 Peter several times, stating he received it from the apostles, which would include Peter. Plus, 2 Peter warns his readers about false prophets are going to rise within the church, while St. Jude states they are already here. This demonstrates 2 Peter was written BEFORE St. Jude.

Regarding 2 (4) Esdras and 1 (3) Esdras being in the Vulgate and the Douay-Rhein’s, I have heard that before. Do you have a link or citation you can share? I also remember a debate Gary Michuta had where it was pointed out that the books of Esdras in the fourth and fifth century church councils were different writings than what we would call Ezra and Nehemiah. Do you know if there is any truth to that?
 
Last edited:
Yah. Some people believe 1(3) Esdras belongs in the Bible because in Saint Jerome’s time , Ezra and Nehemiah were considered one book. And when it named two books of Esdras it may have meant Ezra-Nehemiah as one book and 1(3) Esdras as the other. 1 Esdras is more popular in the east. It is actually called Greek Esdras by some. Somehow 2(4) Esdras became known as Latin Esdras probably because it only really had immense popularity in the west though it also did in Slavonic regions and Ethiopia.
Yes, here is a link to the pre Challoner Douay Rheims Bible which if you go to the end of the Old Testament you will see 3 and 4 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh were in the appendix.

 
Thanks for the link! I will check it out. Just somI get it straight (because it can get kind of confusing), would you mind briefly listing what 1 (3) Esdras, 2 (4) Esdras was and how they differed from Ezra and Nehemiah, and how they would have appeared in the early councils, Vulgate, and Douay-Rheims? Sort of like this:

Fourth century councils: 1 (3) Esdras means ______
Vulgate: … means ______
Douay-Rheims: …means _______

I just want to get it straight. Thanks! 😀
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top