septuagint

[fockwulf]

just curious? why the catholics do not use this version of the old testiment? jesus and st paul used this translation. not the one that is in your bible. could someone explain that too me.

god bless you all

 

[NotWorthy]

Because we don’t read Greek?

I’m sorry, but I’m not sure what your question is. Is it, “Why don’t we use the Canon from the Septuagint”?

Maybe if you can explain the differences, we could answer your question without any smark-aleck remarks.

 

[quasimodo]

just curious? why the catholics do not use this version of the old testiment? jesus and st paul used this translation. not the one that is in your bible. could someone explain that too me.

god bless you all

There was no one version of the Septuagint. It was produced over a period of many years and was written on scrolls. You did not buy a Scroll of the Month Club subscription and get the whole thing for 66 easy payments of $19.95. Not every group of Greek speaking Jews or Christians had the same set of scrolls. What is clear is that the NT writers frequently used the Greek translation of the OT, which as a group commonly goes under the umbrella of “Septuagint”.

But having said that, there was a common canon of the Septuagint which eventually became the accepted canon used by the Church. The same is true of the Jewish canon, by the way. There was no universal Jewish or Hebrew canon of scripture at the time of Christ. Every synagogue had a different set of scrolls; the Sadducees only accepted the first 5 books as Scripture, the Pharasees accepted the same canon as Jews today accept; Essenes accepted a much different set of books as scripture and the early Christians accepted the “Septuagint.” The Jews did not settle on a set canon until well after the destruction of the Temple in 70AD.

The canon we use was determined by the Church over the course of several hundred years and is based on the Septuagint as it was most commonly used. The translations we use today make use of the best resources available which are not necessarily the Septuagint.

By the way, I find it curious that Luther saw fit to change a canon that had been in use for well over 1000 years and use a canon chosen by people who had rejected Christ.

 

[Joel_Tunnah]

If you use the Vulgate, or the Douay-Rheims english translation derived from it, then you’re using the Septuagint, and several Hebrew sources that no longer exist.

If you use the King James, or any of its derivatives; or any modern “scholarly” translation, then you’re mostly using the Masoretic Text version of the Hebrew Scriptures, produced in the 10th century.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

This may blow some people’s minds but at temples in israel during Jesus’ time there could have been some scrolls of the Old Testament in Hebrew and some in Greek.

Even though Jesus probably quoted from the Septuagint more often than the Hebrew–to say that he never quoted from Hebrew is just false.

Since that is the case it makes the most sense to consult both when it comes to translation.

Can anyone prove that St. Jerome didn’t consult both when he came up with his translation?

 

[NotWorthy]

This may blow some people’s minds but at temples in israel during Jesus’ time there could have been some scrolls of the Old Testament in Hebrew and some in Greek.

Even though Jesus probably quoted from the Septuagint more often than the Hebrew–to say that he never quoted from Hebrew is just false.

Since that is the case it makes the most sense to consult both when it comes to translation.

Can anyone prove that St. Jerome didn’t consult both when he came up with his translation?

The first question is “Why would he, if he has the original Hebrew?”

 

[Stillkickin]

Here is my understanding of the Septuagint (for what it’s worth )

At the time of Christ there existed two canons of the Old Testament - the Hebrew and the Greek Septuagint. Due to the Hellenization of the eastern Mediterranean world after the conquests of Alexander the Great, Greek became the popular and common language of that part of the world
The Septuagint is the traditional term, derived from the Latin word meaning seventy, for the Old Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures. There were 72 translators of the Hebrew test into Greek – 6 from each of the tribes of Israel around 200 to 300 BC. This translation is the earliest and one of the most valuable of the ancient biblical versions. The Septuagint was the Bible of the early Christian Church. When the Bible is quoted in the New Testament, it is almost always from the Septuagint version (close to 90% of the time). Furthermore, even when not directly quoted in the New Testament, many of the terms used and partly crafted by the Septuagint translators became part of the language of the New Testament.
The Septuagint ***is the most ancient ***translation of the Old Testament and consequently is invaluable to critics for understanding and correcting the Hebrew text (Massorah), the latter, such as it has come down to us, being the text established by the Massoretes in the sixth century A.D. (as a response to the Christians using the Septuagint the Jews adopted the Hebrew version as their official cannon in the 6th century AD at the Council of Jamnia - more of a school than a council as we think of one today). Many textual corruptions, additions, omissions, or transpositions may have crept into the Hebrew text between the third and second centuries B.C. and the sixth and seventh centuries of our era; the manuscripts therefore which the Seventy had at their disposal, may in places have been better than the Massoretic manuscripts.
Disputes arose over the canon of Scripture due to the fact that the Greek Septuagint contains forty-six books while the Hebrew canon only thirty-nine. The additional books are Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, and 1 & 2 Maccabees. In addition, the books of Daniel and Esther in the Septuagint contain extra chapters. One argument used to substantiate the Hebrew version over the Septuagint was that there were no versions of the omitted books found in Herbrew (argument used by the Jews and the Reformers), as mentioned earlier, the finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls made the argument moot point.

Stillkickin

 

[NotWorthy]

Here is my understanding of the Septuagint (for what it’s worth )

At the time of Christ there existed two canons of the Old Testament - the Hebrew and the Greek Septuagint. Due to the Hellenization of the eastern Mediterranean world after the conquests of Alexander the Great, Greek became the popular and common language of that part of the world
The Septuagint is the traditional term, derived from the Latin word meaning seventy, for the Old Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures. There were 72 translators of the Hebrew test into Greek – 6 from each of the tribes of Israel around 200 to 300 BC. This translation is the earliest and one of the most valuable of the ancient biblical versions.

I agree with the 72 translators, but how did you get six from each tribe when ten of the tribes had been dispersed and were no longer in existence by the time of the Translation?

 

[NotWorthy]

Disputes arose over the canon of Scripture due to the fact that the Greek Septuagint contains forty-six books while the Hebrew canon only thirty-nine. The additional books are Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, and 1 & 2 Maccabees. In addition, the books of Daniel and Esther in the Septuagint contain extra chapters. One argument used to substantiate the Hebrew version over the Septuagint was that there were no versions of the omitted books found in Herbrew (argument used by the Jews and the Reformers), as mentioned earlier, the finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls made the argument moot point.

Stillkickin

Weren’t there also two additional books of Maccabees and two additional Esdras?

 

[Stillkickin]

but how did you get six from each tribe when ten of the tribes had been dispersed and were no longer in existence by the time of the Translation?

Just an assumption on my part, which can sometimes get you into trouble, but I have always assumed even though the tribes were dispersed, many of the exiled Jews knew what tribe they came from and still were true to the Jewish faith. Do I have any documentation at my finger tips to substantiate this - no, but given the time periods I have read, I felt that this would be a logical explaination.

 

[NotWorthy]

Just an assumption on my part, which can sometimes get you into trouble, but I have always assumed even though the tribes were dispersed, many of the exiled Jews knew what tribe they came from and still were true to the Jewish faith. Do I have any documentation at my finger tips to substantiate this - no, but given the time periods I have read, I felt that this would be a logical explaination.

OK, maybe it’s my assumption, but I understood it a different way (how’s that for straddling the fence?)

The Jews had been dispersed for 500 years at this time. They had lost their sense of “Tribal-ness” and been more attuned to being “Jewish”. Does this make sense?

You see, the fact that they were of the tribes of Ephraim or Menassah, while living in Persia, was less important than the fact that they were Jewish. They had to stick together (multiple tribes against a common foe) in order to survive. Tribalship would have promoted non-unity.

 

[Calvinator]

This may blow some people’s minds but at temples in israel during Jesus’ time there could have been some scrolls of the Old Testament in Hebrew and some in Greek.

Do you have any evidence that the books you call deuterocanonical were placed in the temple?

 

[inthecloud]

I understand that the Saducees in The Temple of Jerusalem only regarded as inspired the 5 books of the Torah and nothing more. So did the Samaritans.
The Pharisees, Jesus bitter rivals regarded as inspired the current Jewish and Protestant 66 book cannon.
The Diaspora Jews and the Escenes (which provided many of Jesus early supporters) regarded as inspired the Septuagist cannon. The Jews had the practice to keep the old used up manuscripts in rooms before burning them. Sometimes they forgot to burn them and thats how the texts survived.
Jesus and the Evangelists quoted mostly from the septuagist variant of the Old Testament, including the deutrocannonicals.
The shul of Janna where the Pharisees reunited after the destruction of the Temple to fix the new testament cannon and the Masoretic text, condened the deuterocannonical books as apochypha, but the protestants also forget that they also conndened the new testament books available for the same reason.
In fact one of the reasons given by some secular books that I have read on the subjet is that the deutercannonicals were taken in the shul out of the Old Testament because they were too christian.
And yes for that reasons I think that the Septuaginst cannon and text should be the official christian one.

 

[Reformed1]

I understand that the Saducees in The Temple of Jerusalem only regarded as inspired the 5 books of the Torah and nothing more. So did the Samaritans.
The Pharisees, Jesus bitter rivals regarded as inspired the current Jewish and Protestant 66 book cannon.
The Diaspora Jews and the Escenes (which provided many of Jesus early supporters) regarded as inspired the Septuagist cannon. The Jews had the practice to keep the old used up manuscripts in rooms before burning them. Sometimes they forgot to burn them and thats how the texts survived.
Jesus and the Evangelists quoted mostly from the septuagist variant of the Old Testament, including the deutrocannonicals.
The shul of Janna where the Pharisees reunited after the destruction of the Temple to fix the new testament cannon and the Masoretic text, condened the deuterocannonical books as apochypha, but the protestants also forget that they also conndened the new testament books available for the same reason.
In fact one of the reasons given by some secular books that I have read on the subjet is that the deutercannonicals were taken in the shul out of the Old Testament because they were too christian.
And yes for that reasons I think that the Septuaginst cannon and text should be the official christian one.

Okay, which septuagint text should be in the canon? Do we include 3 and 4 Maccabees? What exactly should we include?