Three Vulgate Bible and Septuagint Questions

[jamesjoseph]

I’m sorry if this is too basic, but I have a few questions regarding the Vulgate Bible and RC tradition.

1. Is Jerome the figure that started the tradition that some books are part of the “apocrypha” that would later be used by Luther to distinguish between the Protestant version of the old testament vs. the RC?
2. I know that Protestants reject the “apocrypha,” but I want to understand how much of this rejection is based upon the rejection of the Septuagint.
3. Lastly, and central to all of the above, why is the Septuagint considered not inspired by those that reject the influence of it (for example: why do Protestant Bibles split Samuel and Kings into two, in consonance with the Catholic Bible, if they reject the Septuagint?).

I ask these questions in good faith and in the hope that I can reach a better understanding. Thank you in advance to all that reply.

 

[DavidFilmer]

1. Is Jerome the figure that started the tradition that some books are part of the “apocrypha”

While Jerome made his lower opinion of the “apocrypha” rather clear, I doubt he was the first person to do so. But he was surely the most vocal.

The Septuagint (LXX) was a Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures. But (unlike the NT), the OT was written and compiled over a long period of time. After the Dispersion, when most Jews became Greek-speaking, these newer writings were originally written in Greek, and were included in the LXX (but not in the older (and largely obscure) Hebrew texts).

2/3 of the OT quotes in the NT are from the LXX (not the Hebrew texts). Most ECF’s regarded the LXX as the authoratative version of the OT (notably St. Augustine).

Jerome, however, thought the grammar of the Heberw (Masoretic) text provided a stronger case for the claims of the NT, and made the controversial decision to use the Hebrew text over the LXX wherever possible (even though he knew Greek much better than Hebrew).

1. I know that Protestants reject the “apocrypha,” but I want to understand how much of this rejection is based upon the rejection of the Septuagint.

The exact status of the “apocrypha”; had been a matter of minor debate among Biblical scholars ever since Jerome (and the matter was not finally settled until Trent). Martin Luther was an Augustinine priest and a teacher of the Old Testament, so he was well aware of these controversies. He favored the position of Jerome, while most of the Church establishment favored the position of Augustine.

After he separated himself from the Church and assumed for himself the tilte of “Doctor above all Doctors in Popedom” he threw many books out of the Bible, including all of the “apocrypha” and also Ester, Jude, James, Romans, and Revelations. But only his opposition to the “apocrypha” actually took hold

I have read that his rejection of the “apocrypha” was based mainly on his desire to exclude Macabees, on account of its instruction to pray for the dead.

1. Lastly, and central to all of the above, why is the Septuagint considered not inspired by those that reject the influence of it (for example: why do Protestant Bibles split Samuel and Kings into two, in consonance with the Catholic Bible, if they reject the Septuagint?).

That’s a really good question.

I’m not sure, but I would speculate that, since Martin Luther and the other people who invented protestantism were originally Catholic, they approached everything from a Catholic (not a Jewish) perspective. So they kept the (Catholic) things they agreed with, and threw out the things that inconvenienced them. They didn’t try to actually reconcile the OT with the Masoretic texts.

 

[COPLAND_3]

Excellent replies by DavidFilmer!

1. I know that Protestants reject the “apocrypha,” but I want to understand how much of this rejection is based upon the rejection of the Septuagint.

It is not as much of a "rejection’ of the Septuagint by Protestants as much as it is a view of the Septuagint being inferior to the Masoretic Text, which in my view is badly mistaken, I feel the opposite. But many Protestants reject the Deuterocanonicals (they call it apocrypha) because they are following a Reformation decision due to a rejection of undeniable doctrines that are found in them. Those doctrines were never rejected by those Early Church Fathers who even considered the Deuterocanonicals as apocryphal or spurious, they rejected them because the Pharisic Jews eventually rejected them in their canon, which was a very misguided error thinking that the Hebrew text of their day was the original Hebrew text, which the Dead Sea Scrolls have proven otherwise in favor of the Septuagint.

 

[jamesjoseph]

Thank you DavidFilmer and Copland 3 for responding to my questions. These posts have helped me.

I hope that someone might still shed some light on the logic of the protestant bible. I am specifically interested in Luther’s decision to follow the Catholics in the non-Hebrew splitting of Samuel and Kings while keeping the decision of Hebrew scholars to reject the Septuagint.

I think that I’m missing something here, and I hope that some Protestants that visit this website might be able to illuminate this for me.

 

[Zenas]

After he separated himself from the Church and assumed for himself the tilte of “Doctor above all Doctors in Popedom” he threw many books out of the Bible, including all of the “apocrypha” and also Ester, Jude, James, Romans, and Revelations. But only his opposition to the “apocrypha” actually took hold

You gave a pretty good answer to the O.P. but I’m afraid you got it wrong about Luther rejecting the book of Romans. You may be confusing Romans with Hebrews, which Luther did not like. However, he often referred to Romans as the most important book of the New Testament. He did tweak Romans 3:28 but otherwise included it in his N.T. and relied on it heavily in promoting his doctrines.

 

[DavidFilmer]

You may be confusing Romans with Hebrews, which Luther did not like.

True, thanks for the correction.