Septuagint books

[RaisedCatholic]

Thanks. From the chart, it appears 1 (3) Esdras and 2 (4) Esdras wasn’t in Jerome’s Vulgate (just Ezra-Nehemiah), but perhaps in later versions of the Vulgate and in the Douay-Rheims. I always thought the Douay-Rheims was a direct translation of St. Jerome’s Vulgate from the fifth century. The Wikipedia link doesn’t say anything about which of these “Esdras” were in the fourth and fifth century councils though. Do you know?

 

[RaisedCatholic]

Scratch that! I just read about them in the article! (Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[BartholomewB]

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.

The expression “the Law and the Prophets” occurs about a dozen times, I think, mainly in the Gospels, and less frequently in Acts and the Epistles. If I have understood you correctly, you are saying that Jesus, Paul, or another speaker might sometimes have been using the expression in a loose sense, to embrace one or two other books — such as Job, Daniel, or the Psalms — in addition to the ones in what was then the recognized canon. Yes, I suppose they might have been, but can you know for certain that, in a given instance, that is, in fact, the speaker’s intention?

 

[Thomasbradley312]

I’m not sure honestly.
It is very possible these books were not in Jerome’s original Vulgate, and would explain why they weren’t ultimately received into the Canon.
3 Esdras probably was known to Jerome. Most early Fathers cited it. The thing is the book really is only a summary of 2 Chronicles 34- Nehemiah. Chapter 3 and 4 are the only real unique material in the book. So it is possible that is why it wasn’t received. Though this happens in other books of the Bible such as Samuel-Kings being largely paralleled by the books of Chronicles.
The Prayer of Manasseh was very popular in early Christianity. Saint Thomas Aquinas cites it in Summa Theologica. It seems it wasn’t in the original Vulgate but at some point was appended to 2 Chronicles as the end.
4 Esdras was popular in the early Church as well. Saint Ambrose quotes it frequently. It seems it was in the Vulgate sporadically but eventually in the 12th century its inclusion became standard following Ezra, Nehemiah( 1 and 2 Esdras), 3 Esdras.
Also some Vulgates included the Psalm 151 ( which is in Greek Bibles), and an alleged Epistle to the Laodiceans.
What it seems happened was the Protestant Revolution happened and the Church needed to once and for all declare the Canon at the Council of Trent. They probably looked at ancient lists and then only retained those books which had formerly been listed and removed those that hadn’t.
This is where 3 and 4 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh were removed from the Old Testament.
However in 1592, Pope Clement Vlll included them as an appendix to the Clementine Vulgate for their ancient usage etc and they remained as valuable reading. This is probably why these three texts are included with the Catholic deuterocanonical books in Protestants standard apocrypha, because to them they just include books which were in the Vulgate at the time of the reformation in that list. Like in the Anglican communion for example, 2 Maccabees is equal in authority to 2(4) Esdras. In fact it was Protestants who made the numbering so confusing. They just began calling 1 and 2 Esdras Ezra and Nehemiah and then began calling 3 and 4 Esdras, 1 and 2 Esdras.

 

[JohnR77]

The Esdras books are very confusing. This chart explains it well.

" So when the Council of Carthage (397) and Synod of Hippo (393), under the influence of Augustine of Hippo, determined that only ‘two books of Ezra’ were to be considered canonical, it was Ezra-Nehemiah and 1 Esdras which were stated as being included in scripture, while 2 Esdras was being excluded.[5]

Jerome however, in his new Vulgate translation of the Old Testament directly from the Hebrew of the early 5th century, affirmed in his prologue to Ezra that there was only one canonical book of that title, corresponding to Ezra-Nehemiah; and in all early manuscripts of the Vulgate (as with the 7th century Codex Amiatinus) this book is presented without division …"

Nice chart, but historical development wrong.

First,

In the Bible Codex Amiatinus the books are in the following order

Esther, followed by
Jerome’s comments. Then
Ezra, then
Nehemiah, then
outline for Maccabees, then
Maccabees, then
New Testament.
There is no room there for Apocrypha Esdras 1(3)

Some major sections have introductory commentary, or outlines, but the overall format for the separation of the books in the Old Testament is the same format used for the separation of Ezra and Nehemiah.

Hippo and Carthage did not include Apocrypha Esdras 1(3)

John

 

[patrick457]

So did the original Septuagint have the deuterocanical books?? I heard Catholic scholars saying yes, but Protestant scholars said the original Septuagint only included the Torah. I’m not sure, because there are different versions of the Septuagint. Because Protestants keep saying the original Septuagint only has the Torah. So what books did the Original Septuagint include? Because there are versions including the Torah only and the deuterocanonicals.

In a nutshell:

• There’s a Greek translation of the Torah made around the 3rd century BC. Legend claims that this translation was created by seventy-two Jewish scholars at the behest of the Greek King of Egypt Ptolemy II Philadelphus. So this Greek Torah became known as “The Translation of the Seventy”. Eventually the legend became embellished to the point that the Greek Torah was seen as the product of some kind of miracle, even something that is of equal standing as the Hebrew Torah it was translated from.
• By the 2nd century BC onwards, you begin to see other Jewish literature (including books that would be recognized today as biblical) being translated into Greek or Jewish authors writing stuff in Greek. So you have a whole genre of Jewish Greek literature.
• When Christianity became a thing, early Christians (who predominantly wrote in Greek) used these Greek translations / original compositions. Interestingly, they extended the “translation of the Seventy” moniker to not just the 3rd century BC Greek Torah, but to these other documents as well - which is why we call the Greek Old Testament as a whole ‘Septuagint’ now.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

The expression “the Law and the Prophets” occurs about a dozen times, I think, mainly in the Gospels, and less frequently in Acts and the Epistles. If I have understood you correctly, you are saying that Jesus, Paul, or another speaker might sometimes have been using the expression in a loose sense, to embrace one or two other books — such as Job, Daniel, or the Psalms — in addition to the ones in what was then the recognized canon. Yes, I suppose they might have been, but can you know for certain that, in a given instance, that is, in fact, the speaker’s intention?

From what I’ve read in Bible commentaries & elsewhere, in Acts 24:14-15 when the term “the Law & the Prophets” is used, it’s referring back to Job 19:26-27 & Daniel 12:2, which are part of the third “division” of “the Writings.” And in Luke 24:44, “Moses & the Prophets” is referring back to Psalm 119:17 & Isaiah 29:18, which are “the Writings” & “the Law.” And Acts 26:22-23 is citing Psalm 16:10 & Chapter 22, which are also part of “the Writings.” So, even though usually “the Law & the Prophets” in the NT generally is limited to the first two “sections” (the five books of Moses & the “prophetic” books, it does seem elsewhere to refer to the third division of “the Writings” from time to time. I think sometimes the use of the term “the Prophets” also sometimes references that third section. So, “the Law & the Prophets” seems to mean the first 5 books of the Bible + everything else, except when Jesus “separates” the Psalms" from “the Prophets” at the end of Luke’s gospel.

 

[BartholomewB]

Thank you, @RaisedCatholic. I’ll look carefully through all those references. I’ll get back to you later. For the time being, let me just point out that in Luke 24:44 Jesus says, “… Everything written about me in the Law of Moses and in the Prophets and Psalms.” I think this clearly demonstrates that the book of Psalms was not included in the term, “the Law and the Prophets.”

 

[RaisedCatholic]

Yes, this seems to be an example where “the Prophets” refers to the second divisio of the OT and “the Psalms” is the third. This is similar to when Jesus said in your “Law” it says “you are gods” but He is referencing “the Psalms” not the “the Law,” and when St. Paul quotes from “the Law” but references Isaiah in “the Prophets.” It seems “the Prophets” does not always mean the second of the three divisions of “the Law and the Prophets and the Writings,” but the context of the passage determines which section “the
Prophets” is referring too.

 

[BartholomewB]

In the first of your three NT passages, Acts 24:14-15, the late Jewish belief in bodily resurrection seems to be the connection. The verse in Daniel is very specific on this point. As far as I’m aware, though I have no specialist knowledge, resurrection isn’t mentioned, or even alluded to, in any of the books in the first two sections of the Hebrew Bible. In this case, then, I think you’re right. It clearly makes sense to infer that sometimes, at least, the term “the Law and the Prophets” was used in a loose sense to refer to all the Scriptures, including those that only came to be formally accepted into the canon many years later.

Sometimes, though not invariably. Take this verse in Acts, for instance:

After the reading from the Law and the Prophets, the rulers of the synagogue sent a message to them, saying, “Brothers, if you have any word of encouragement for the people, say it” (Acts 13:15).

I don’t think anyone has claimed that Daniel or any other books from the third section, known as the “Writings,” formed part of the readings in the synagogues in Paul’s day, or even later.

This has reminded me of something Edmund Wilson says in his book about the Dead Sea scrolls. When the evangelists and other NT authors refer back to passages in the OT that they interpret as prophecies of Jesus and his mission, all too often it turns out that the passage in the Hebrew Bible seems to have been misquoted or misattributed. According to a theory that was popular for a time among nineteenth-century Protestant theologians in Germany and Britain, the NT authors were not quoting directly from the scrolls of the Hebrew Bible or the Septuagint. Instead, they were taking their quotes from a compilation of snippets from the OT, arranged under headings such as “messianic,” “legal,” “apocalyptic,” and so on. This would explain a number of puzzling misattributions, such as this one in Matthew:

Then was fulfilled what had been spoken by the prophet Jeremiah, saying, “And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him on whom a price had been set by some of the sons of Israel, and they gave them for the potter’s field, as the Lord directed me.” (Matt 27:9-10)

Part of this prophecy is in Jeremiah, but not all of it:

Behold, Hanamel the son of Shallum your uncle will come to you and say, “Buy my field that is at Anathoth, for the right of redemption by purchase is yours.” Then Hanamel my cousin came to me in the court of the guard, in accordance with the word of the Lord, and said to me, “Buy my field that is at Anathoth in the land of Benjamin, for the right of possession and redemption is yours; buy it for yourself.” Then I knew that this was the word of the Lord. And I bought the field at Anathoth from Hanamel my cousin, and weighed out the money to him, seventeen shekels of silver. (Jer 32:7-9)

This is clearly only a minor part of the OT prophecy concerning Judas, the thirty pieces of silver, and the potter’s field. The major part comes, not from Jeremiah, but from Zechariah:

[cont.]

 

[BartholomewB]

[cont. from previous]

Then I said to them, “If it seems good to you, give me my wages; but if not, keep them.” And they weighed out as my wages thirty pieces of silver. Then the Lord said to me, “Throw it to the potter” — the lordly price at which I was priced by them. So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the house of the Lord, to the potter (Zech 11:12-13).

Edwin Hatch, a Septuagint specialist at Oxford, was influential in whipping up support for this hypothetical collection of OT quotations, which he called a Testimonia. After his death in 1889, however, the idea seems to have just faded away.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

In the first of your three NT passages, Acts 24:14-15, the late Jewish belief in bodily resurrection seems to be the connection. The verse in Daniel is very specific on this point. As far as I’m aware, though I have no specialist knowledge, resurrection isn’t mentioned, or even alluded to, in any of the books in the first two sections of the Hebrew Bible. In this case, then, I think you’re right. It clearly makes sense to infer that sometimes, at least, the term “the Law and the Prophets” was used in a loose sense to refer to all the Scriptures, including those that only came to be formally accepted into the canon many years later.

So, this is a clear example that when “the Law & the Prophets” is used, it isn’t always limited to the first two divisions of the OT (the Torah, and the Prophets), but can also include books like Daniel & Job, which are part of the third division of “the Writings.” So, when Jesus said “the Law & the Prophets” elsewhere, He seems to be using it as a sort of slang or short-hand for “the Old Testament.”

Then was fulfilled what had been spoken by the prophet Jeremiah, saying, “And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him on whom a price had been set by some of the sons of Israel, and they gave them for the potter’s field, as the Lord directed me.” (Matt 27:9-10)

Part of this prophecy is in Jeremiah, but not all of it:

This is clearly only a minor part of the OT prophecy concerning Judas, the thirty pieces of silver, and the potter’s field. The major part comes, not from Jeremiah, but from Zechariah:

Then I said to them, “If it seems good to you, give me my wages; but if not, keep them.” And they weighed out as my wages thirty pieces of silver. Then the Lord said to me, “Throw it to the potter” — the lordly price at which I was priced by them. So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the house of the Lord, to the potter (Zech 11:12-13).

Even if most of it did come from Jeremiah, the part from Zechariah clearly doesn’t come from it. Yet, St. Matthew still attributes the quote to Jeremiah who was not the author.

I can’t remember if I mentioned it here, but I found a book on Amazon called “Why Protestant Bibles Are Smaller,” written by a former Catholic, and one of the subsections in one of the chapters is called, “The Apostle Matthew & the Septuagint.” I wonder if he explains there, or elsewhere in his book, why he attributes Zechariah’s quote to Jeremiah, instead of Zechariah? It’s in a chapter that you can’t view for free on Amazon…it only goes up to part of chapter 1 of his book.

 

[BartholomewB]

Even if most of it did come from Jeremiah, the part from Zechariah clearly doesn’t come from it. Yet, St. Matthew still attributes the quote to Jeremiah who was not the author.

So, when Jesus said “the Law & the Prophets” elsewhere, He seems to be using it as a sort of slang or short-hand for “the Old Testament.”

So what is the explanation of Matthew’s misattribution? Hatch thought the hypothetical Testimonia might be the answer, but that was over 100 years ago and nobody seems to take that idea seriously nowadays. And the same goes for what you claim is Jesus’ habitual inexact use of the term “the Law and the Prophets”. Why would he do that? What is your explanation? We saw in Luke 24:44 that Jesus was careful to point out that the Psalms are not included in “the Law and the Prophets”. Why wouldn’t he be equally careful on the other occasions? What makes you think Luke 24:44 is the exception and not the rule?

 

[RaisedCatholic]

So what is the explanation of Matthew’s misattribution? Hatch thought the hypothetical Testimonia might be the answer, but that was over 100 years ago and nobody seems to take that idea seriously nowadays. And the same goes for what you claim is Jesus’ habitual inexact use of the term “the Law and the Prophets”. Why would he do that? What is your explanation? We saw in Luke 24:44 that Jesus was careful to point out that the Psalms are not included in “the Law and the Prophets”. Why wouldn’t he be equally careful on the other occasions? What makes you think Luke 24:44 is the exception and not the rule?

For one, Luke 24:44 is the only place in the NT where the phrase “The Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms” is used. Everywhere else it’s simply “the Law & the Prophets.” So, the former seems to be the exception, while the latter seems to be the rule. And we both agreed, “the Law & the Prophets” is a term to describe the OT as a whole (The Law to refer to the 5 books of Moses, & The Prophets to refer to the rest of it), rather than simply referring to the first two divisions of the OT.

From my study of the NT, the same term can refer to different parts of the OT. For example, Jesus said “it says in your Law” but He doesn’t quote from the Torah, but the Psalms. Same with St. Paul when he says “the Law” but quotes the prophet Isaiah, not the Torah. Even “the Prophet” sometimes refers to books in the third division of “the Writings” such as the Psalms, rather than the second division of “the Prophets.”

As far as Matthew quoting part of his quote from Jeremiah, even though it’s actually from Zechariah, I read quite awhile ago somewhere (I don’t remember the source) that Jeremiah was sometimes used as a collective term to describe the section “part” of the OT (ie: the Prophets). It was sort of a pseudonym. So if someone said “Moses & Jeremiah” it would be the same thing as saying “the Law & the Prophets,” and from what I can remember, Jews - specifically the Pharisees - had Jeremiah as the first book in the second division of their OT. And it is the OT canon of the Pharisees that share the same books found in Protestant OTs today (source: Jimmy Akin, Catholic Answers).

So, why does Jesus most of the time say “the Law & the Prophets,” while in Luke 24:44 He says “the Law of Moses & the Prophets & the Psalms”? He seems to be using different terms in different ways. For former as the second half of the OT, while the former to acknowledge a three-part division of the OT that we today would use the terms “the Law & the Prophets & the Psalms.” Just as Jeremiah was the first book in “the Prophets” in the Pharisee OT, “the Psalms” would have been the first book in “the Writings.” At least that is my take on it, based on what I’ve read in the past - again, I can’t remember from where.

 

[adf417]

I wonder if he explains there, or elsewhere in his book, why he attributes Zechariah’s quote to Jeremiah, instead of Zechariah? It’s in a chapter that you can’t view for free on Amazon…it only goes up to part of chapter 1 of his book.

I believe you could have read the book by now. How long are you going to “wonder” about this book?

Peace!!!

 

[RaisedCatholic]

I believe you could have read the book by now. How long are you going to “wonder” about this book?

Peace!!!

LOL! Between working, celebrating the 4th, & responding to what seems like an endless number of comments, I really haven’t had time to order it (I prefer hardcover & paperback, as opposed to Kindle), beyond the free section I read on Amazon. Plus, I wasn’t sure if I was going to order it until now, and I wanted to see what objections others were going to say first before deciding to order it. I don’t want to buy something low quality or poor arguments. But most of the comments are addressed in the free section or in the TOC.

 

[adf417]

But most of the comments are addressed in the free section or in the TOC.

Yes im sure it is and your advertisement for it has been very effective.

Peace!!!

 

[RaisedCatholic]

Yes im sure it is and your advertisement for it has been very effective.

Peace!!!

What can I say, I like to read an eclectic range of books written by a myriad of authors, including controversial topics. What I found unique about this book is that is was written by a former Catholic using mostly Catholic resources to defend the Protestant OT canon. Usually books are written using the author’s “comfort zone” resources. However, this one used the majority of his resources from outside of it. This is what I found intriguing and worth sharing, especially after I read the free section which anyone can read for themselves. In fact, that part can almost defend the title of the book on its own.

 

[adf417]

adf417:

Yes im sure it is and your advertisement for it has been very effective.

Peace!!!

What can I say, I like to read an eclectic range of books written by a myriad of authors, including controversial topics. What I found unique about this book is that is was written by a former Catholic using mostly Catholic resources to defend the Protestant OT canon. Usually books are written using the author’s “comfort zone” resources. However, this one used the majority of his resources from outside of it. This is what I found intriguing and worth sharing, especially after I read the free section which anyone can read for themselves. In fact, that part can almost defend the title of the book on its own.

Sounds like you have you a new version of “your bible”. Exactly what a “devil’s advocate” would do.

Then to play devil’s advocate…

Peace!!!

 

[RaisedCatholic]

Sounds like you have you a new version of “your bible”. Exactly what a “devil’s advocate” would do.

Then to play devil’s advocate…

That’s just a figure of speech. Even Catholics use it. All that matters is what version of the Septuagint Jesus affirmed. All these little word games, name calling, & accusations are just distractions & smokescreens. Let’s stay on topic, shall we? And what I’m trying to get across, it’s not a “new version of ‘my bible,’” but it was the version of the Septuagint the Pharisees had possession of, which Jesus affirmed in Luke 16.