Septuagint & OT Canon Question

[garysibio]

I don’t know how to respond to this one. Any ideas?

Catholics use, as support for their OT canon, the use of the LXX as evidence for the longer canon. The NT authos used the LXX and quoted from it. However, the Catholic Church does not include the entire LXX in their OT. Since these books were included in the LXX the NT authors used, how can we justify leaving them out of the OT?

I’ve got nothing.

 

[mercytruth]

This is speculation, but there is probably a lack of quotation of those books by the early church fathers (the first three hundred years, or so of the church) to support their inclusion.
This was probably the basis for which the NT books were chosen also.

It is possible to obtain an index of the OT scriptures that are quoted, or referred to in the
writings of the early church fathers. There may also be a few quotations by the early church fathers that are no where to be found, but such an index does not exist to my knowledge.

 

[Bible_Reader]

I don’t know how to respond to this one. Any ideas?

Catholics use, as support for their OT canon, the use of the LXX as evidence for the longer canon. The NT authos used the LXX and quoted from it. However, the Catholic Church does not include the entire LXX in their OT. Since these books were included in the LXX the NT authors used, how can we justify leaving them out of the OT?

I’ve got nothing.

To say *the *Septuagint is a misstatement; there were many Septuagints and many different translations executed centuries apart. As a result, for each text in the one of the Septuaginst, we need to determine:

(a) whether it is canonical by tradition

(b) which Septuagint translation to use

This is how we ended up with the so-called “Catholic Apocrypha” (Esdras 3, Esdras 4, Prayer of Manasseh) as an appendix to the Vulgate.

The short answer of how some things are in and other are out – the quick answer is: tradition.

For a longer answer, you can look at a book such as The Canon Debate (a terrific book, by the way). If you want to see how much variation there is between Septuagint versions, take a look at A New English Translation of the Septuagint (another terrific book.)

 

[garysibio]

This is speculation, but there is probably a lack of quotation of those books by the early church fathers (the first three hundred years, or so of the church) to support their inclusion.
This was probably the basis for which the NT books were chosen also.

It is possible to obtain an index of the OT scriptures that are quoted, or referred to in the
writings of the early church fathers. There may also be a few quotations by the early church fathers that are no where to be found, but such an index does not exist to my knowledge.

There are a couple of problems with this:

1. The Greek Orthodox and Coptic churches accept them as canonical.
2. The ECFs quote - I’m pretty certain - the Didache and the Shepherd of Hermas but they are not considered canonical.
3. I’ve never heard a case made for using whether a work was quoted by the ECFs as a criteria for canonicity. That would seem to grant them a much higher authority than they have. Also, some ECFs accept books which others reject.

 

[garysibio]

To say *the *Septuagint is a misstatement; there were many Septuagints and many different translations executed centuries apart. As a result, for each text in the one of the Septuaginst, we need to determine:

(a) whether it is canonical by tradition

(b) which Septuagint translation to use

This is how we ended up with the so-called “Catholic Apocrypha” (Esdras 3, Esdras 4, Prayer of Manasseh) as an appendix to the Vulgate.

The short answer of how some things are in and other are out – the quick answer is: tradition.

For a longer answer, you can look at a book such as The Canon Debate (a terrific book, by the way). If you want to see how much variation there is between Septuagint versions, take a look at A New English Translation of the Septuagint (another terrific book.)

So if there are different versions of the LXX, that makes the problem even more difficult. Which version do we use?

 

[Bible_Reader]

So if there are different versions of the LXX, that makes the problem even more difficult. Which version do we use?

This is a basic issue of text criticism.

Scholars generally use the *Göttingen Septuagint *editions which print all different versions.

The New English Translation of the Septuagint prints major variants (and often splits into parallel and bracketed pages as a result.)

In Catholic use, translations are primarily made from the Hebrew Bible, and the Septuagints are used for the Deutorocanonicals. For lectionary passages, Liturgiam Authenticam requires that the textual basis of Lectionary passages in the Deuterocanon match up with the textual basis of the Nova Vulgata. This comes into play in the book of Sirach, for example. The NABRE Sirach is based on the Old Greek Septuagint while Nova Vulgata (and thus the lectionary) is based on the GKII text.

The same problem occurs, to a lesser degree, in the New Testament as well. We have many variant versions of the New Testament. A simple example is the well-known “longer ending to Mark.” As a result, each translator has to first establish its own Greek text before beginning translation of the New Testament.

If you look at a scholarly edition of the New Testament, such as the NA27, you will discover an extensive “apparatus” explaining all variant readings across the hundreds or thousands of different original variant New Testament texts that we have.

For the Hebrew Bible, the problem is less acute, because there relatively little variation among the different standard manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible, the so-called Masoretic text. However, some recent editions have “corrected” the Masoretic text by referring to Dead Sea Scroll manuscripts, or ancient witnesses such as the Septuagint texts and Vulgate.

 

[MarcoPolo]

I don’t know how to respond to this one. Any ideas?

Catholics use, as support for their OT canon, the use of the LXX as evidence for the longer canon. The NT authos used the LXX and quoted from it. However, the Catholic Church does not include the entire LXX in their OT. Since these books were included in the LXX the NT authors used, how can we justify leaving them out of the OT?

I’ve got nothing.

A Catholic should not be arguing in favor of the Deuterocanon solely on the basis of inclusion in the Septuagint. Though inclusion is supportive/evidence, it is not by itself conclusive. The Church, in discerning Scripture, measured the use of the texts in churches and their apostolic origin (e.g. Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, II.12). Ultimately, it was the Holy Spirit revealing the books to the true Apostolic successors. The books confirmed at Florence and Trent are traceable to the synods of Rome, Carthage, and Hippo in the 4th/5th centuries.

 

[garysibio]

This is a basic issue of text criticism.

Scholars generally use the *Göttingen Septuagint *editions which print all different versions.

The New English Translation of the Septuagint prints major variants (and often splits into parallel and bracketed pages as a result.)

In Catholic use, translations are primarily made from the Hebrew Bible, and the Septuagints are used for the Deutorocanonicals. For lectionary passages, Liturgiam Authenticam requires that the textual basis of Lectionary passages in the Deuterocanon match up with the textual basis of the Nova Vulgata. This comes into play in the book of Sirach, for example. The NABRE Sirach is based on the Old Greek Septuagint while Nova Vulgata (and thus the lectionary) is based on the GKII text.

The same problem occurs, to a lesser degree, in the New Testament as well. We have many variant versions of the New Testament. A simple example is the well-known “longer ending to Mark.” As a result, each translator has to first establish its own Greek text before beginning translation of the New Testament.

If you look at a scholarly edition of the New Testament, such as the NA27, you will discover an extensive “apparatus” explaining all variant readings across the hundreds or thousands of different original variant New Testament texts that we have.

For the Hebrew Bible, the problem is less acute, because there relatively little variation among the different standard manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible, the so-called Masoretic text. However, some recent editions have “corrected” the Masoretic text by referring to Dead Sea Scroll manuscripts, or ancient witnesses such as the Septuagint texts and Vulgate.

Interesting but has nothing to do with the canon.

 

[garysibio]

A Catholic should not be arguing in favor of the Deuterocanon solely on the basis of inclusion in the Septuagint. Though inclusion is supportive/evidence, it is not by itself conclusive. The Church, in discerning Scripture, measured the use of the texts in churches and their apostolic origin (e.g. Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, II.12). Ultimately, it was the Holy Spirit revealing the books to the true Apostolic successors. The books confirmed at Florence and Trent are traceable to the synods of Rome, Carthage, and Hippo in the 4th/5th centuries.

I understand that but my question only had to do with that one particular argument.

 

[MarcoPolo]

I understand that but my question only had to do with that one particular argument.

Ok. Just remember not to let others who debate you try to reduce your argument to that point alone. Many Catholic beliefs cannot be reduced only to one facet. In other words, our arguments and beliefs often depend on all the evidence together, making it pointless for others to try to refute them individually instead of a whole package.

 

[garysibio]

Ok. Just remember not to let others who debate you try to reduce your argument to that point alone. Many Catholic beliefs cannot be reduced only to one facet. In other words, our arguments and beliefs often depend on all the evidence together, making it pointless for others to try to refute them individually instead of a whole package.

I wouldn’t but the question still deserves an answer.

 

[AdesteFideles]

Since these books were included in the LXX the NT authors used…

If I understand this correctly, it seems to be assuming the objector can provide evidence for the complete LXX manuscript the NT authors used. This is just not possible; or if it is, I’d certainly like to know how.

But the overall argument here is one which just is irrelevant to any point which is of use in such a discussion. I don’t know that any Catholic adheres to an If it’s in the LXX, it must be canon position.

Rather, the LXX is one witness – amongst many – which testifies to the ancient role the Deutorocanonical books played in the life of the Church. It is a vantage point which shows that these works did not merely fall out of the sky upon Trent one cold morning. Within this context, the LXX is brought in to discussion.

Those who reject these books as canonical, must demonstrate that their position is tenable in light of such evidence as LXX. They should not simply shift the burden of proof to someone else; and ask them to demonstrate their own views. The reason the Church rejects some books found in early manuscripts of the LXX, is not the same reason that some reject the Deutorocanonicals, or accept the apocrypha. There are clearly several cases here.

Just for the sake of argument, let’s say the Church can’t show why the apocrypha were rejected. We’re just fantasizing here to consider the logic. Does this mean someone rejecting the Deutorocanonicals or accepting the apocrypha does not need to provide a positive case? Let’s say we don’t know why the Church rejected those works. Does this imply they necessarily lacked the ability to judge and decide? If we say* I don’t know* is our position left in ruins? None of this deals with the central argument the Church has always used, and whilst it may be fun to consider, it just isn’t relevant.

 

[Rainaldo]

…early manuscripts of the LXX…

What constitutes a manuscript of the LXX? Wouldn’t that be an impractically huge scroll? Manuscripts of the first five books alone can be over 100 feet long.

 

[Bible_Reader]

Interesting but has nothing to do with the canon.

Wait, now you are confusing me. You asked two questions. the second was:

So if there are different versions of the LXX, that makes the problem even more difficult. Which version do we use?

That was the question I was responding to.

---

In response to your first question of why the canon is one way and not another, I gave the answer in an earlier post:

The short answer of how some things are in and other are out – the quick answer is: tradition.

For a longer answer, you can look at a book such as The Canon Debate (a terrific book, by the way). If you want to see how much variation there is between Septuagint versions, take a look at A New English Translation of the Septuagint (another terrific book.)

The canon was handed down on a basis of tradition. You can read books that study how that tradition developed, but the answer is simply tradition.

Our tradition is one way; others have different traditions. An attempt to come up with a scientific answer of which texts are in and which texts are out will lead to absurdity.

 

[Bible_Reader]

What constitutes a manuscript of the LXX? Wouldn’t that be an impractically huge scroll? Manuscripts of the first five books alone can be over 100 feet long.

We have codices, such as the Codex Alexandrinus, the Codex Vaticanus, and the Codex Sinaiticus.

 

[Rainaldo]

We have codices, such as the Codex Alexandrinus, the Codex Vaticanus, and the Codex Sinaiticus.

But those only date from the 300s; a pre-Christian edition would have been a scroll, right?

My point is that there couldn’t have been any single volume that someone could point to and say “that’s the Septuagint”, peel back the first few inches and peek at the table of contents to see if it contained 2 Maccabees - because such an object physically could not exist. Therefore it is improper to speak of a “canon” of the Jews as if the Jews were carrying around volumes that contained all of and only the 46 books Catholics now count as the Old Testament. (Or the 39 the Protestants now count, for that matter.)

Instead, what they must have done is portion out the books as separate entities for the most part: Genesis through Deuteronomy is plenty for one scroll on two rollers, with books like Esther and Lamentations each on a single roller of its own, Hosea-Malachi forming one roll, and so on.

• So if you were there when Jesus was reading Isaiah that fateful day in the synagogue and asked the guy sitting next you what the Jewish “canon” was, he would have said, “Well it’s the Torah that they just read from before this guy”.
• And if you pressed him on whether Isaiah is in the canon, he would say, “Well he was a prophet, and we read excerpts from his prophecies, I guess you could say that, but the Torah is directly written by God through Moses, not like a prophet who came along recently.”
• And if you asked if Nehemiah is inspired he would have said “Well, it’s a memoir written by Nehemiah; we never read it in Sabbath services - what do you mean by inspired?”
• If you ask about 2 Maccabees and Ecclesiasticus, he would have said “They are part of our traditional literature - but what is with your obsession over inspiration and canonicity? You’re such an anachronism.”
• If you say, “But aren’t they in your Bible?”, he would reply “The Torah is our Bible.”

 

[Bible_Reader]

But those only date from the 300s; a pre-Christian edition would have been a scroll, right?

My point is that there couldn’t have been any single volume that someone could point to and say “that’s the Septuagint”, peel back the first few inches and peek at the table of contents to see if it contained 2 Maccabees - because such an object physically could not exist. Therefore it is improper to speak of a “canon” of the Jews as if the Jews were carrying around volumes that contained all of and only the 46 books Catholics now count as the Old Testament. (Or the 39 the Protestants now count, for that matter.)

Instead, what they must have done is portion out the books as separate entities for the most part: Genesis through Deuteronomy is plenty for one scroll on two rollers, with books like Esther and Lamentations each on a single roller of its own, Hosea-Malachi forming one roll, and so on.

• So if you were there when Jesus was reading Isaiah that fateful day in the synagogue and asked the guy sitting next you what the Jewish “canon” was, he would have said, “Well it’s the Torah that they just read from before this guy”.
• And if you pressed him on whether Isaiah is in the canon, he would say, “Well he was a prophet, and we read excerpts from his prophecies, I guess you could say that, but the Torah is directly written by God through Moses, not like a prophet who came along recently.”
• And if you asked if Nehemiah is inspired he would have said “Well, it’s a memoir written by Nehemiah; we never read it in Sabbath services - what do you mean by inspired?”
• If you ask about 2 Maccabees and Ecclesiasticus, he would have said “They are part of our traditional literature - but what is with your obsession over inspiration and canonicity? You’re such an anachronism.”
• If you say, “But aren’t they in your Bible?”, he would reply “The Torah is our Bible.”

Yes, the Septuagint consisted of many, many different books translated at many, many different times, and there were multiple translations (Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, etc.), all of which show up in Origen. These were rescinded in complicated ways into what is now called “the Septuagint” (actually, there are many Septuagints.) Thus, the textual basis of the additions to Daniel is based on Theodotion, who made the translation in the second century.

Since we have no surviving Septuagint scrolls from the pre-Common era – only fragments (and from the Common Era), we do not know how the Septuagint texts were divided up among scrolls, or even if there was any standardization to that effect.

As to the question of when the canon developed, that is a complicated question, and different scholars take different views.