The DC and the LXX

  • Thread starter Thread starter sambos671
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

sambos671

Guest
What are the reasons claim canonicity of the DC in the LXX and how do you prove that position?
 
sambos671 said:
What are the reasons claim canonicity of the DC in the LXX and how do you prove that position?
Click to expand...
The strongest argument for their inclusion into the canon is that the Church received the Scriptures from God; that is to say, God led the Church as a whole to recognize the voice of God speaking in the sacred writings. The DC books have always been included in the Greek manuscripts among the Christian Church.

The DC books have, however, always been disputed by one or another segment of the Church and so I believe they should be a part of our modern Bibles; however, doctrine should not be directly drawn from them as there are serious questions about some of the things that they teach compared to the rest of the OT and some parts flatly contradict other areas. We, as Lutherans, would not consider them inspired but that doesn’t mean they are not inherently a part of Christian tradition.
 
TriuneUnity said:
The strongest argument for their inclusion into the canon is that the Church received the Scriptures from God; that is to say, God led the Church as a whole to recognize the voice of God speaking in the sacred writings. The DC books have always been included in the Greek manuscripts among the Christian Church.

The DC books have, however, always been disputed by one or another segment of the Church and so I believe they should be a part of our modern Bibles; however, doctrine should not be directly drawn from them as there are serious questions about some of the things that they teach compared to the rest of the OT and some parts flatly contradict other areas. We, as Lutherans, would not consider them inspired but that doesn’t mean they are not inherently a part of Christian tradition.
Click to expand...
This very point is what I’m having difficulty getting across. I can’t even touch the next aspect of the debate with out settling this issue that the DC were accepted and used in early christian literature. I argue authoritatively.
 
sambos671 said:
This very point is what I’m having difficulty getting across. I can’t even touch the next aspect of the debate with out settling this issue that the DC were accepted and used in early christian literature. I argue authoritatively.
Click to expand...
That is true, and if for no other reason than that, the DC should be included in our modern Bibles.

For Lutherans (as that, really, is the only tradition I can accurately defend), Luther’s personal views on the DC do not invalidate them. The Augsburg Confession of Faith refers to them as “scripture.” We use them in liturgy and in hymns. Every German translation of Luther’s included them. They didn’t remove them until it went into English (and of course, the KJV had them, too).

The good news is many Protestants are starting to rediscover their value to the Church at large. I believe next year, Oxford Publishing is included the DC books with their edition of the English Standard Version.
 
TriuneUnity said:
That is true, and if for no other reason than that, the DC should be included in our modern Bibles.

For Lutherans (as that, really, is the only tradition I can accurately defend), Luther’s personal views on the DC do not invalidate them. The Augsburg Confession of Faith refers to them as “scripture.” We use them in liturgy and in hymns. Every German translation of Luther’s included them. They didn’t remove them until it went into English (and of course, the KJV had them, too).

The good news is many Protestants are starting to rediscover their value to the Church at large. I believe next year, Oxford Publishing is included the DC books with their edition of the English Standard Version.
Click to expand...
I have an oxford edition of the DC. Good translation.
 
sambos671;:
I can’t even touch the next aspect of the debate with out settling this issue that the DC were accepted and used in early christian literature. I argue authoritatively.
Click to expand...
At least one poster there, who should know better, appears to be utterly clueless about the NT Canon.

Trying to persuade them that the Anagignoskomena have a documented historical usage within the Christian church, that dates to 30 AD is going to be all but impossible.

I don’t remember where I read this. 😦
As part of Jewish efforts to disassociate themselves with the early Christians, they closed their canon, specifically excluding books in the LXX. I have not looked for data to substantiate that claim. However, there is evidence, both within the Talmud, and in other sources, that suggests that Hellenic Jews were using the LXX during their worship services. This practice stopped after the Early Christian church was numerically large enough to be confused with the worship practices of the Hellenic Jews.
TrineUnity;:
The DC books have, however, always been disputed by one or another segment of the Church
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, that is also true for some of the Canonical books. (Hebrew Esther is probably the best known example. (One of the ironies is that Greek Esther is more congruent with the OT than Hebrew Esther is.))
however, doctrine should not be directly drawn from them
Click to expand...
I rather like what one fundamentalist Christian congregation claims to do: “If you can’t support it with scripture from the Torah, the Wisdom books, The Prophets, The Gospels, and Paul, it can’t be Doctrine.”
The good news is many Protestants are starting to rediscover their value to the Church at large.
Click to expand...
I’m almost at the point where if a commentary excludes the Anagignoskomena, I’ll won’t use it. I reached that point with hard copy Bibles some time ago.

xan

jonathon
 
I’m trying to get down to the nitty gritty of the Deuterocanonical inclusion into inspired scripture.

**The real question is why do some Protestants exclude it?

It was part of EVERY major English translation, including the King James Version, UNTIL the New American Standard Version of the mid-'60’s (NOT the same as the NAB).**
 
bpbasilphx said:
I’m trying to get down to the nitty gritty of the Deuterocanonical inclusion into inspired scripture.

**The real question is why do some Protestants exclude it?

It was part of EVERY major English translation, including the King James Version, UNTIL the New American Standard Version of the mid-'60’s (NOT the same as the NAB).**
Click to expand...
Over reaction to Rome. Pretty cut and dry. As is the case with most of Reformed Christianity and its various offshoots.
 
bpbasilphx;:
The real question is why do some Protestants exclude it?
Click to expand...
The logic goes:
  • They are not in the Jewish Canon;
  • Therefore they were not used by the Early Christians;
  • Therefore they can not qualify for canonical status;
The more interesting question is why do those Protestant denominations that profess to accept the deuterocanonical books in their creeds, ignore them.
was part of EVERY major English translation, including the King James Version, UNTIL the New American Standard Version of the mid-'60’s.
Click to expand...
If you had settled for 1850, or even 1900, I would agree with you.
Since then, inclusion of the Deuterocanonical books has almost consistently seemed to be “an afterthought”.

xan

jonathon
 
**The logic goes:
  • They are not in the Jewish Canon;
  • Therefore they were not used by the Early Christians;
  • Therefore they can not qualify for canonical status;**
**The very presence of the Apocrypha in the LXX (the Greek version of the Hebrew Scriptures made 200 years before Christ) shows that this canon was more fluid than people realize at the time of Christ. The Jews did not formally define it until the Rabbinical Synod of Jamnia in 90 AD or so–a good two generations AFTER the founding of the Church.

Who attended this synod? The spiritual children of the very people whom Jesus condemned as “fools” and “blind guides” who rejected Him during the days of His earthly ministry.

I, for one, do not consider their decision to be of any weight for Christians.

In any case, they WERE used by the Early Christians.

Whether you consider them canonical or not is beside the point. The fact is the vast majority of all Christians DID and DO consider them canonical, so you are the one who is out of step.**

If you had settled for 1850, or even 1900, I would agree with you.
Since then, inclusion of the Deuterocanonical books has almost consistently seemed to be “an afterthought”.

**This says more about the people who translated the RSV and their attitude towards the Apocrypha (or about you) than it does about these books themselves.

These books may not have been included in the ASV of 1901, but this was nothing more than the American variorum of the ERV of 1881, which DID include them. I have seen editions of the ASV that contained the DC books from the 1881 ERV.**
 
Those who argue against the canonicity of the Deutero-Canonicals will need to explain how they then accept that Deuteronomy (Deutero Nomo - second law) is binding law for the Jews.

Deutero simply means 2nd. It does not mean “substandard” or “not”. Interesting how all English translations of the Old Testament derive their names of the books from the Greek Septuagint.

John
 
sambos671 said:
This very point is what I’m having difficulty getting across. I can’t even touch the next aspect of the debate with out settling this issue that the DC were accepted and used in early christian literature. I argue authoritatively.
Click to expand...
Not a single Christian Manuscript does not include them.

And when the Jews made their own translations of the OT in Greek, to counter the LXX (Christians proved too good at debating from it, so it was abandoned by the Jews, although they hereto had considered it inspired), they translated the DC. The translation of Theodotion was so good of Daniel (including, Susanna, Bel, and Three Youths) that the Church used his transaltion.

The Masoretic text that the Protestants use (your link answered my question) was not redacted until after the Seven Ecumenical Councils, i.e. it’s late.

The Dead Sea Scrolls not only provide support for the LXX text, but the Hebrew of many of the DC have been found in the past century or so. Ben Sirach had been known because it is descussed and commented on in the Talmud (one reason it got dropped was the Christians used it for catechumens), and of course, the Jews celebrate Hannukkah, although, having dropped Maccabbees, they no longer have scriptural warrant for doing so.
 
jblake said:
At least one poster there, who should know better, appears to be utterly clueless about the NT Canon.

Trying to persuade them that the Anagignoskomena have a documented historical usage within the Christian church, that dates to 30 AD is going to be all but impossible.

I don’t remember where I read this. 😦
As part of Jewish efforts to disassociate themselves with the early Christians, they closed their canon, specifically excluding books in the LXX. I have not looked for data to substantiate that claim. However, there is evidence, both within the Talmud, and in other sources, that suggests that Hellenic Jews were using the LXX during their worship services. This practice stopped after the Early Christian church was numerically large enough to be confused with the worship practices of the Hellenic Jews.
Click to expand...
The Letter of Aristeas (2nd cent. BC)
ccel.org/c/charles/otpseudepig/aristeas.htm
shows the Jews thought the translation inspired. The Talmud speaks of it as the fullfillment of Noah’s blessing that Japheth will dwell in the tents of Shem. Sirach is commented on in the Talmud. The closing of the Jewish canon took place after the NT was written, and took several centuries to take, as the Jews translated new Greek translations for themselves, which included the DC.

The polemics of the period show that the use of the LXX was a problem (they lost) against Christians, e.g. the translation of LXX Isaiah of a “Virgin,” parthenos, which CAN"T mean young woman.
Unfortunately, that is also true for some of the Canonical books. (Hebrew Esther is probably the best known example. (One of the ironies is that Greek Esther is more congruent with the OT than Hebrew Esther is.))
Click to expand...
Excellent point.
 
Possibly Romophobia in some cases, but in others it may merely be the belief that the between the pages of the bible one should find only inspired texts.

Which brings us back to the ageless and irresolvable Canon debate.

I am sure someone will ask how Protestants can even know that the DC/OT Apoc. are non-canonical and uninspired without a magisterium to tell them so or some variation thereof.

I am not interested in answering that question I’ve done it dozens of times on this very message board. If you’re really interested you can find my answer, if you just want to open that can of worms again, I’ll leave it to another to argue about it.

TriuneUnity seems amply prepared to do so.
 
bpbasilphx;:
The very presence of the Apocrypha in the LXX (the Greek version of the Hebrew Scriptures made 200 years before Christ
Click to expand...
I’m not debating the validity of their logic.
Merely what their logic is.
Rabbinical Synod of Jamnia in 90 AD or so
Click to expand...
The historical evidence suggests that this synod never took place.
This says more about the people who translated the RSV and their attitude towards the Apocrypha (or about you) than it does about these books themselves.
Click to expand...
a) In the 1650’s, the driving force for publication sans Anagignoskomena was economics,not theology.

b) Take a look at the difference between the seventeenth and eighteenth century translations of the Bible. It becomes very apparant that translations will be purcahsed, even if they exclude that material. By the time the ASVwas published, including deuterocanonical material was the exception,not the rule. This becomes even more evident, when looking at when, and how the deuterocanonical books are translated, in comparison to the other portions of the Bible.

c) Looking at the USB Bible Translations, it is very obvious that very little effort is being put into translating deuterocanonical material into the vernacular.

xan

jonathon
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top