Who did the Protestant reformers think they were to take books out of the Bible?

[Dave_Noonan]

Concluding post:

You said:You may be right about the training? I’m not, are you? Can a trained scholar be wrong and a layman right?

If you lived right before the Reformation, most likely you would be Catholic correct? And if you were a scholar, and knew the books of the Bible, you would know the Deuterocanons as Scripture correct (you personally at the time might have considered yourself a Jeromist, but you knew that the Church held them to be Scripture)? Now there are many Bibles today that do not contain those Deuterocanons, or they list them as apocryphal and not Scripture correct? So the Reformers may not have officially removed them, but they sure got the ball rolling on their removal, correct?

You said:You can go to a ton of Protestant websites that state the exact same thing that the O.P. stated, why do they buy into it? Why was I on one Protestant website which said that papal bulls were written on the skin of infants that were murdered by Catholic priests? And how about those websites talking about the female and pregnant pope? I know Protestants who know and believe both of these things. Why do they buy into it?

The point is, we don’t live in the late Middle Ages anymore. After the Enlightenment we should have the ability to be critical thinkers and not buy into things simply because someone at CAL or some Fundamentalist website tells us that something is the case. Again, I give Gary Michuta real credit for going up against (although admitted not that vigorously) Patrick Coffin, Jimmy Akin, Tim Staples, Mark Shea and countless others for what in actuality amount to ad hominem attacks against the Reformers.

 

[benhur]

Perhaps Jerome did think/knew the Septuagint was corrupted, but the point is, he followed it anyway!!!

Hi DN

I still like to use Jerome to support a 66 book, and am in total agreement to the unfortunate buckling he did against his own scholarship. A bit like Augustine citing scripture that," all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God " but then immediately citing Mary as an exception without any backup save tradition. He knew it didn’t fit scripture explicitly but…

Blessings

 

[Duane1966]

Took a quick listen 8 min. and found it pretty good but still typical “posturing”. The idea that P’s chop out books because they contain C stuff is wrong. JonC disputed here (could not find his post) that *nowhere *did Luther mention taking out mac 2 because of it’s purgatory implications. I also found it a bit disingenuos when the radio question was posed as to why books were taken out and both host and guest had zero inkling as to why except they were Catholic supporting.Really? The only reason? I wonder if the radio show mentions that the CC also cut out books, did not include all books that were in the Septuagint either . Kind of like when CC rightly keeps out books because of an error in the book or from good criteria the P’s do not rightly do so also? Luther used much of the criteria that many scholars use, including CC, to determine God-breathedness. But yes , more stringent criteria, and many say scholarly criteria.

Then comes to attack fling that Luther did not like the book of James, yet Luther’s remarks in his preface to James contained similar comments made by others (Catholics), even Jerome,… and who cares, he included the book.

Finally the assertion that Hebrews mentions martyrs and their “hope for a better resurrection” coming right out of 2nd Mac as if Mac then had to "scripture. Maybe maybe not, as if there were no other books that it may be garnered from. Also if an inspired writer “borrows” a phrase from another source does that make the source also God-breathed? I mean I think Paul quotes a few things to make his point that came from “outside” sources.

But thank you and may listen some more,and thanks for letting me rant.

Blessings

Luther did not, as far as I can ascertain, but Calvin did. Luther did say St. James should not be held as high as the epistles of St. Paul specifically because he felt they ran counter to St. Paul. I can post the exact quote (sourced) if you like.

If not for the doctrine that is derived from praying for the dead, why do Protestant’s have a problem with Mac? If it is okay to call some books unscriptural that the Church has held as sacred scripture for over a 1000 years (we believe right from the founding of the Church), why wouldn’t it be okay to call other books in the NT unscriptural? The same Church that said those 27 books of the NT are "God-breathed, " also said that those seven books in dispute are “God-breathed”. If the Church cannot be trusted on those seven books, why should anyone trust her on the NT?

 

[benhur]

Luther did not, as far as I can ascertain, but Calvin did. Luther did say St. James should not be held as high as the epistles of St. Paul specifically because he felt they ran counter to St. Paul. I can post the exact quote (sourced) if you like.

OK.Are you sure that is the only reason? Was James one of the " fringe’’ books as far as acceptance, pre-Hippo?

If not for the doctrine that is derived from praying for the dead, why do Protestant’s have a problem with Mac?

With all the digging you have done you can find no reasons given?I have heard that Mac1 might be ok but not mac 2 .Do not recall specifics why but it is not the purgatory part. Again, why did the CC leave out books from Septuagint ?

Also regardless of what we canonize, most theologians understand that some were more accepted than others. Some had higher evidences and tradtions for being God-breathed than others. Of course we must be obedient to the spirit of discernment and include those as should be. But we have not discarded any books that have been always universally accepted before final canonizing (Trent) . We have discarded some of the “fringe” books, as you have also though less.

I understand your concern about Church and authority etc. That is valid. But what is also valid is the tradition of the church "at large’’, in an uninstitutional way, that has also discerned the books as she received them. That is, before any canonizing and councils there was a consensus. How else could the Eusebius allegedly make 50 bibles for Constantine, before any “council”. How else could a few patristic writings start referring to 23 then 24 and finally 27 books etc . One also has the tradition and history of the Old testament and its informal (without council) acceptance. One must also acknowledge the allowed wiggle room for some fringe books both in the OT and up to Trent. That is all part of the tradition, and does not have to shake any churches canonizing authority too much.

Those are my thoughts thank you.

Blessings

 

[Duane1966]

OK.Are you sure that is the only reason? Was James one of the " fringe’’ books as far as acceptance, pre-Hippo?

Tell me, if a book is fringe, and then the Church declares it “God-breathed” scripture, isn’t it kind of stupid to still relegate it as a “fringe” book? What confidence can I have in any of the scriptures, if the Church got it wrong, on, as you say a “fringe” book? Maybe She got it wrong on all the books. But if that “fringe” book is actually God-breathed as the Church says, then wouldn’t it be stupid to not derive doctrine from what God has inspired?

His friend Carlstadt rhetorically asked Luther about his opinion of James:

Why, if you allow the Jews to stamp books with authority by receiving them, do you refuse to grant as much power to the Churches of Christ, since the Church is not less than the Synagogue?

(in Westcott, 486)

You said:

With all the digging you have done you can find no reasons given?I have heard that Mac1 might be ok but not mac 2 .Do not recall specifics why but it is not the purgatory part.

My own personal theory. Luther does not have a problem with those seven books, until he sees the abuses that are going on at the time in regard to indulgences. But indulgences and Purgatory go hand in hand. Now he has a problem. To get rid of indulgences, he must call into question the concept of Purgatory. How to do this? Say those seven books are questionable, and cannot be used to derive doctrine. From this website: socrates58.blogspot.com/2009/03/martin-luther-asserts-that-purgatory-is.html

Christ's words in John, about purging the Branch, have been applied to purgatory by a certain Vincent [of Beauvais; d. 1264], than whom no one ever twists the sense of Scripture more . . . The text in Maccabees [1] is left, and is quite plain. But that book does not make articles of faith, nor do the Fathers consider it an authority; the second book especially is several times rejected by Jerome.

[1] [Notes from this book] 2 Maccabees, 12:46, quoted supra, no. 163.

(Letter of Luther to Georg Spalatin, 7 November 1519; in 245-246; in Preserved Smith, translator and editor, Luther's Correspondence and Other Contemporary Letters, Vol. I: 1507-1521, Philadelphia: The Lutheran Publication Society, 1913; from Enders, II, 224)

Note, then, that Luther does not deny that the teaching of purgatory is plain in 2 Maccabees; he only denies that it is authoritative. In other words, his argument is one from canonicity or the lack of that quality, rather than from theology or exegesis. This is confirmed by Luther’s best friend and successor Philip Melanchthon, in another letter contained in the same book (referred to in the footnote above):

After this they debated on the power of the Pope over the souls in purgatory, and Eck took a new tack and began to prove from the text in Maccabees that purgatory existed. Luther, following Jerome, denied that Maccabees was authoritative . . .

(Letter of Melanchthon to John Oecolampadius, 21 July 1519, in Smith, ibid., 200-202; from Corpus Reformatorum, I, 87; noted also in Roland Bainton, Here I Stand, 1950, 117)

And from this website:calledtocommunion.com/2010/01/the-canon-question/

Luther spoke boldly against the value and even reliability of certain books that all Protestants treat as canonical. Within the Old Testament, Luther found Christ preached with special clarity in Genesis, Psalms, and Isaiah.127 However, according to Bruce, when challenged by the passage in 2 Maccabees supporting prayers for the dead, “that they might be delivered from their sin,”128 Luther “found a ready reply in Jerome’s ruling that 2 Maccabees did not belong to the books to be used ‘for establishing the authority of ecclesiastical dogmas”129. Bruce goes on to quote Luther thus: “I hate Esther and 2 Maccabees so much that I wish they did not exist; they contain too much Judaism and no little heathen vice.”130 Notice Luther’s special animus toward Esther; if the Spirit’s movement in his heart to see Christ preached is the measure of canonicity, there would be no principled basis for accepting Esther and rejecting Second Maccabees. Notice also that Jerome, while excluding 2 Maccabees, did accept Esther as fit for establishing doctrine. So if Luther “found a ready reply” from Jerome, it was only in an ad hoc fashion.

You said:

Again, why did the CC leave out books from Septuagint ?

Taken from this website, think you will find the whole article an interesting five minute read. catholicbridge.com/catholic/orthodox/why_orthodox_bible_is_different_from_catholic.php

Among the “apocryphal” books, some were considered to be very orthodox and even inspired (but still not approved for public reading at the Liturgy), and others were considered to be uninspired or to contain errors (or even to be outright heretical). Only the “canonical” books were approved for reading at the Liturgy (the Mass).

Again, if I cannot trust that the Church got those seven books correct, why should I trust Her on the NT, for there were many more writings that She had to sift through? Me personally, I KNOW if I don’t hear Her on what constitutes the bible, that I am not only rejecting the Apostles, but also Jesus, and the One who sent Him.

To be continued…

 

[Duane1966]

Part 2.

You said:

Also regardless of what we canonize, most theologians understand that some were more accepted than others. Some had higher evidences and tradtions for being God-breathed than others. Of course we must be obedient to the spirit of discernment and include those as should be. But we have not discarded any books that have been always universally accepted before final canonizing (Trent).

Just not true. The may have been rejected by some individuals, but can you show me any church BEFORE the Reformation that discarded them? From this website:catholic-legate.com/articles/otcanon.html

The best rebuttals to the Protestant claims about the Canon of the Bible actually come from recent protestant scholarship. In the late 1960’s, A. C. Sundberg did his doctoral dissertation on the OT Canon of the early Church at Harvard (Old Testament of the Early Church: A Study of Canon). He concluded that there was no evidence of any “Alexandrian Canon” of the Jews. Rather, from the early 2nd centruy onwards (and before, in my opinion, if you read the Apostolic Fathers), the long Greek OT canon was always used by Christians everywhere. The preference among a minority of the Fathers for the “Palestinian Canon” is restricted to those Fathers (e.g. Cyril of Jerusalem, Origen, Athanasius, Jerome) who studied Hebrew with the Rabbis and were embarrassed to discover that the Jewish Bible was not the same as that of the Christians. The tendency to restrict the books of the OT to the Jewish canon is a distinctly late development among a restricted few critical scholars. In fact, the longer Canon was promulgated at the Council of Hippo in 393 AD when the Church definitively settled the NT canon and EVERY pre-reformation Christian body recognizes the deuterocanonical books without exception.

It should also be noted that the Council of Hippo (like the NT itself) makes no distinction between OT and NT. The definitive list of books it promulgated was for the Scriptures as a whole. The distinction between OT and NT is not Biblical but rather is a later affectation of (primarily prot) scholars who wanted to separate the discernment of the canons of the 2 testaments in order to accept all of one but only part of the other. In fact, if you go back and check, every pre-Hippo Father who had a truncated OT canon also had an aberrant NT canon usually lacking some of the books we accept and including some we do not. Check it out and you will see what I mean.

You said:

We have discarded some of the “fringe” books, as you have also though less.

I say, thank you for that information. It begs the question: did Jesus give you the authority to do that? If yes, can I assume that everyone has that authority? Should I have a problem with Jehovah’s Witnesses changing words in John to support their theology? Surely they have the authority also. And how about those that are starting to question the epistles of St. Paul? Surely their authority is just as legitimate as anyone else.

 

[Duane1966]

I think our basic disagreement is in understanding what constitutes historical evidence. “Here’s an article on the Internet” or “here it says right here in a book” is not evidence unless it’s well-founded and argued using the historical record–not based on opinion or speculation.

There’s absolutely NOTHING in the historical record that says that R. Akiva formed a standardized Jewsh canon or Hebrew text. And even if he had, Jews in Babylon for example (the center of Jewish learning and scholarship by the time of the Mishnah) might have found his opinion interesting but not necessarily authoritative. R. Akiva was not the “pope” of Judaism–that’s just not how Judaism functions.

I refer you to pages 20 and 21 of the book found here. books.google.com/books?id=jZlwYGilLW0C&pg=PA20&lpg=PA20&dq=did+r+akiva+standardize+hebrew+texts?&source=bl&ots=_BgQAzi5lj&sig=7UU8BhGJXHdie5XjXBHuMTM7kuM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDQQ6AEwBGoVChMI-JmjyNuxxwIVEBGSCh2p9QVp#v=onepage&q=did%20r%20akiva%20standardize%20hebrew%20texts%3F&f=false I do find it interesting that site after site after site link R Akiva with standardized text. Can you give me links showing there was no standardized text?

As an aside, it’s interesting and somewhat revealing that Michuta calls R. Akiva a “false prophet” around 8:00–assumedly to discredit him and his fictional text/canon. I’m positive Jews would find such language pretty offensive.

And there are many Jews that find calling Jesus the Messiah offensive. Should I stop calling Him that?

Anyway, Jerome did not prepare his translation based on the Hebrew text, and to show such, I referred you to Jerome’s own notes–not to a secondary source. And if you don’t want to believe Jerome’s own translation notes, then here’s another very simple way of seeing this: do a side by side comparison of the text of the Vulgate and the Septuagint and the Masoretic Text. Just start reading at Gen. 1:1 and see to which of the two texts the Vulgate most closely matches. The Septuagint Jerome readily preserves odd/erroneous Septuagintal constructions that are inconsistent with the Hebrew text (for example, “…you will die the death…” of Gen 2:17) and erroneously translates Heb. “gan” as paradisus (to match the Septuagint, against the Hebrew) versus elsewhere in the Vulgate Jerome properly translates gan as Latin “hortus”. There are many, many, many examples like this. But again, you don’t have to take my word for it or even Jerome’s.

Researching this, may take awhile to confirm what you state, or rebut.

Perhaps Jerome did think/knew the Septuagint was corrupted, but the point is, he followed it anyway!!! So much the worse for Jerome and 1,000 years of Christianity!

Elaborate please.

As you rightly point out, correcting the Septuagint for the more accurate Hebrew was very controversial at the time and as Jerome’s own translation notes show, he typically deferred to the Septuagint, likely for fear of rocking the biblical boat too much. You can draw your own conclusions about why Jerome tried to make other people like Augustine think he was translating from the Hebrew text–there have been several other forum threads here on this topic.

Can you show me that the Septuagint is not accurate? Because everything I have read lately points to it’s accuracy.

 

[benhur]

Tell me, if a book is fringe, and then the Church declares it “God-breathed” scripture, isn’t it kind of stupid to still relegate it as a “fringe” book?

It is only relegated "fringe’’ in terms of any prologue and its history. The history can not be changed, that is the early tradition of the book before any canonizing. The actual canonizing from my understanding actually, most formally, took place at Trent (but yes , less formal at Hippo Carthage etc).

I do not think it “stupid” to say the gospel of John had the same informal, universal acceptance and circulation early on as say the book of James or Hebrews etc. The pre-canon church was very careful and by tradition categorized writings with words such as "universal’’ ,“doubtful”, "spurious’’, "forgery’’ etc.

One thing is recognizing the history of the book even with labels. Another is to include it in canon. In the end that is what matters.

Blessings

 

[rnmvrck]

Matt. 2:16 – Herod’s decree of slaying innocent children was prophesied in Wis. 11:7 – slaying the holy innocents.

Matt. 7:16,20 – Jesus’ statement “you will know them by their fruits” follows Sirach 27:6 – the fruit discloses the cultivation.

Matt. 9:36 – the people were “like sheep without a shepherd” is same as Judith 11:19 – sheep without a shepherd.

Matt. 22:25; Mark 12:20; Luke 20:29 – Gospel writers refer to the canonicity of Tobit 3:8 and 7:11 regarding the seven brothers.

John 5:18 – Jesus claiming that God is His Father follows Wisdom 2:16.

Luke 21:24 – Jesus’ usage of “fall by the edge of the sword” follows Sirach 28:18.

I really hope that you do not seriously consider these pasages to be prophetic. In your first reference alone, there is no prediction of a future event that has not yet happen by a specific person or situation and if you read the beginning of the chapter about Moses, this quote is past tense and refers to the slaying of infants by the Egyptians. The other references could be applied to countless other passages and general, not specific. Examples of speicifc prophecy would be:
The messiah will ride a donkey in Jerusalem and proclaim Himself King.
The messaih will show up a given day (i.e., Palm Sunday) and proclaim Himself to be the Messiah to the Jewish people.
The Messiah will be crucified (and crucifixation was not even invented at the time of this prophecy).
The messiah would be put to death even though he did not wrong.
The messiah would be born in Bethlehem.
The messiah would not have a bone broken in hsi body.
The messiah would have His side pierced.

There are over 230 specific prophetic statements in the Old testament and absolutley zero that have any validity at all in the Books of Apocraphal. The references people try to make from the Apocrophal about how quotes and references show up in the New Testament are big stretches and could apply to many different books in any time era. Many that were claimed were already stated with the texts of the Old testament. There are also numerous error in the material facts of thes books also and inspired scripture has 0 inerrancies.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

I do find it interesting that site after site after site link R Akiva with standardized text. Can you give me links showing there was no standardized text?

Again, you’re not showing me anything from the historical record. That’s because there is nothing in the historical record. If you want to show me something from the historical record and how you believe it supports your claim, I would be more than happy to discuss that with you. You can’t use the historical record to prove a non-existant event; links (i.e., “I saw it on the Internet so it must be true”) don’t really help, right?

I also pointed out that *even if *R. Akiva had come up with a list of canonical texts, he doesn’t have the authoritative weight to drive a consensus across a very diverse Jewish audience. A Jew living in Alexandria, for example, might have been interested in R. Akiva’s opinion (or not) but there’s nothing within the structures of Judaism that would make his opinion authoritative. The majority of Jews were living outside of the Roman Empire at the time–why would they have even known about R. Akiva’s views on the biblical canon?

And there are many Jews that find calling Jesus the Messiah offensive. Should I stop calling Him that?

In my opinion, that’s not a parallel situation. For example, it’s different for a Muslim to declare Mohammed to be a prophet than for me as a non-Muslim to proclaim him as a false prophet to Muslims. In my opinion such statements are unnecessarily inflammatory and uncharitable–and in this specific case it’s resorting to ad hominem to try to prove a point–almost always a sign of a lack of evidence.

Can you show me that the Septuagint is not accurate? Because everything I have read lately points to it’s accuracy.

I pointed out some very simple examples of erroneous translations in my post. Or again, I would refer you to Jerome’s own translation notes on Genesis. Or simply do a side-by-side comparison, as I suggested.

 

[Duane1966]

I also pointed out that *even if *R. Akiva had come up with a list of canonical texts, he doesn’t have the authoritative weight to drive a consensus across a very diverse Jewish audience. A Jew living in Alexandria, for example, might have been interested in R. Akiva’s opinion (or not) but there’s nothing within the structures of Judaism that would make his opinion authoritative. The majority of Jews were living outside of the Roman Empire at the time–why would they have even known about R. Akiva’s views on the biblical canon?

This is a red herring. We originally started talking about St. Jerome, and what text he used. What a Jew in Alexandria at the time thought, does not matter, as St. Jerome was living in Palestine, and learning from the rabbis there, who without a doubt used said standardized text. He thought that the Septuagint was corrupted, not realizing that the Hebrew text he was translating from had become standardized, and that at one time there existed other Hebrew texts, which we now know that the Septuagint was based on.

You said:

Then Michuta posits that this theoretical “standard Hebrew text” (again, for which there is no evidence) was the one being used by Jerome, for which there is also no evidence.

The following is taken from the Jewish Virtual Library: jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0003_0_02930.html

In fact, the rabbinic testimony cited above demonstrates the existence of a movement away from a plurality of recensions and toward textual stabilization. The textual-critical activities of the soferim are all directed to this end and they are expressly reported to have worked on a text fixed even in respect of the number of its letters (Kid. 30a). Whatever its intrinsic worth this talmudic tradition could not have arisen among the rabbis had the fixing of the text been recent. The presence of Temple-sponsored “book correctors”** implies the acceptance at some point in the Second Temple period of an authoritative text by which the accuracy of other scrolls was measured (Ket. 106a; TJ, Shek. 4:3, 48a; Sanh. 2:6, 20c).** The record of the variant Temple scrolls is a tradition concerned with an attempt to ensure just such a standardized recension. Indeed, that there existed an official Temple Scroll (Sefer ha-Azarah) which enjoyed high prestige is amply attested in rabbinic sources (TJ, Sanh. 2:6, 20c; Shek 4:3, 48a; MK 3:4; Kelim 15:6; cf. Jos., Wars, 7:150, 162), though it is not possible to tell exactly to what period they refer. Certainly, the seven rules of biblical hermeneutics, compiled but not invented by Hillel the Elder (Tosef., Sanh. 7:11; ARN1 37, 110; cf. Pes. 66a; TJ, Pes. 6:1, 33a), take the history of the attempt at textual stabilization at least back to the time of Herod.

Soon after the destruction of the Temple, Josephus (Apion, 1:8) wrote about the inviolate nature of the text of the Jewish Scriptures and it is clear that he regarded this as a virtue of long standing.** Further proof for the existence of the notion of an authoritative text is provided by the Letter of Aristeas which is well aware of the circulation of carelessly written books of the Law (Arist. 30) and has Ptolemy send to the high priest in Jerusalem for a Hebrew text from which to make the Greek translation (ibid., 33–40, 46; cf. 176).** Once produced, this translation itself came to be regarded as sacrosanct by the Jews of Alexandria (ibid., 311). Nevertheless, there is evidence from Qumran that the Greek translation was the object of much recensional activity, the purpose of which was to bring it into line with developments in the Hebrew texts current in Palestine. This phenomenon reveals, once again, both that the Hebrew text was still fluid and that there was a movement toward textual stabilization.

Within this period the notion of an authoritative text was well rooted outside the Qumran community. A very limited number of textual families is discernible, probably each having achieved local authority. Each family, however, exhibits internal textual variety. The religious leadership in Jerusalem appears to have recognized a fixed text and to have been engaged in textual-critical activity aligning divergent exemplars with it. The beginnings of this movement may possibly be traced to the Maccabean victories. At any rate, the recensional family that ultimately crystallized into what came to be known as “masoretic” is well represented among the Qumran collection, the most outstanding example being the Isaiah scroll (1QIsb).
THE THIRD PERIOD † (First Century C.E.–Ninth Century C.E.)

To be continued…

 

[Duane1966]

Part 2.

THE THIRD PERIOD † (First Century C.E.–Ninth Century C.E.)

The existence of an official text with binding authority from the generation of the destruction of the Temple is clearly reflected in halakhic discussions. Zechariah b. ha-Kaẓẓav, who was apparently a priest in the Temple (cf. Ket. 2:9), based legal decisions on the presence of a conjunctive vav (Sot. 5:1). *Nahum of Gimzo, of the first generation of tannaim, employed the principle of “extension and limitation” in the interpretation of certain Hebrew particles (Ḥag. 12a; Pes. 22b),{B] a hermeneutical system later developed to the full by R. *Akiva to whom not a word of the Torah, nor even a syllable or letter, was superfluous. Hence, he could derive a multiplicity of rules from each tittle on the letters of the Torah (Men. 29b). He, too, warned against teaching from “uncorrected” books (Pes. 112a) and emphasized the importance of the protective devices (masoret) for the Torah text (Avot 3:13).

Further, it was in Akiva’s day that the question arose as to whether the established consonantal text or the traditional manner of reading was to determine the halakhic interpretation (Mak. 7b; Sanh. 4a; Pes. 86b; Kid. 18b). R. Ishmael, his contemporary, formulated the 13 hermeneutical norms (Sifra 1:1) which presuppose a fixed recension. He also advised R. Meir to be extraordinarily meticulous in his work of transcribing sacred texts lest he omit or add a single letter (Er. 13a). This period is distinguished from its predecessors in that a single stabilized text attained unimpeachable authority and achieved hegemony over all others.** This development seems to have occurred in the course of the first century C.E., probably as a consequence of the need for religiocultural cohesion and national unity following the destruction of the Temple.** Before long, all other Hebrew recensions were discarded and passed into oblivion, leaving only a few traces behind.**

It is true that in the generation after R. Akiva copies of the Torah made by R. Meir might still contain a few textual oddities (Gen. R. 9:5; 20:12), and medieval tradition could retain a record of variant readings found in a Torah scroll stored in the synagogue of Severus in Rome (Bereshit Rabbati, ed. Albeck, p. 209). It is also true that rabbinic literature has preserved several hundred deviations from the received text in scriptural quotations and in reconstructed readings underlying a specific piece of midrashic exegesis, while the same phenomenon may be discernible in citations in Jewish Palestinian apocryphal and pseudepigraphical literature, in the New Testament, and in the Church Fathers. Even in the third century C.E., R. Ammi, a Palestinian amora, might still find it necessary to warn against the retention of “uncorrected books” for more than 30 days (Ket 19b). Nevertheless, at this period all this constitutes a survival and not a living tradition.The hegemony of the masoretic-type text is amply attested, apart from halakhic sources, by two independent classes of witnesses. On the one hand, the Hebrew biblical scrolls and fragments discovered at Masada (66–73 C.E.), at Wadi Murabbaʿat, and at Naḥal Ḥever (both from c. 132–35 C.E.) are all practically identical with the received text. On the other hand, the Jewish Greek translation of the Minor Prophets found in Naḥal Ḥever, and the second-century Greek translations of the Bible attributed to Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion all testify to revisions of the Septuagint attempting to bring it closer to a masoretic-type Hebrew text which had become exclusively authoritative. Whether this development resulted from an official promulgation by accepted religious authorities, or whether it was the culmination of a long period of growth during which the masoretic type had always represented the mainstream of tradition can no longer be determined.** Whatever the case, no further developments of any significance in the biblical Hebrew consonantal text took place during the 600 years that elapsed between the latest manuscripts from the tannaitic period (c. 200 C.E.) and the earliest medieval ones (c. ninth century C.E.). None of the medieval manuscripts and codices, and not even the thousands of Bible fragments from the Cairo *Genizah represent a recension different from the received text.Sure seems like there was a standardized text in use at the time of St. Jerome.

To be continued…

 

[Duane1966]

Part 3.

You said:

I pointed out some very simple examples of erroneous translations in my post.

Then we have a problem here. Is the translation erroneous, or based on a different text? You had better hope and pray the latter. If the former, how protected is the NT, as they quoted the Septuagint far more than the Masoretic?

Of the places where the New Testament quotes the Old, the great majority is from the Septuagint version. Protestant authors Archer and Chirichigno list 340 places where the New Testament cites the Septuagint but only 33 places where it cites from the Masoretic Text rather than the Septuagint (G. Archer and G. C. Chirichigno, Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament: A Complete Survey, 25-32).

If the NT authors knew the Septuagint was corrupted, why use it? Is their use of the Septuagint so much the worse for Christianity over the last 2000 years?

You said:

Anyway, Jerome did not prepare his translation based on the Hebrew text, and to show such, I referred you to Jerome’s own notes–not to a secondary source. And if you don’t want to believe Jerome’s own translation notes,

Jerome’s translation notes for the Pentateuch, emphasis mine:

I have received the desired letters of my Desiderius, who in a foretelling of things to happen has obtained with Daniel a certain name 1, beseeching that I might hand over to our hearers a translation of the Pentateuch in the Latin tongue** from the Hebrew language.**

Therefore let us ask them where these are written, and when they are unable to say,** we may produce them from the Hebrew books.**

If anywhere in the translation I have been seen by you to err, ask the Hebrews.

You sure his notes say he did not translate from the Hebrew?

 

[Dave_Noonan]

This is a red herring. We originally started talking about St. Jerome, and what text he used. What a Jew in Alexandria at the time thought, does not matter, as St. Jerome was living in Palestine, and learning from the rabbis there, who without a doubt used said standardized text. He thought that the Septuagint was corrupted, not realizing that the Hebrew text he was translating from had become standardized, and that at one time there existed other Hebrew texts, which we now know that the Septuagint was based on.

No, Gary Michuta’s arguments (for example c. 27:19 and c. 52:39) rely on the premise that there was one standardized text established at the time of R. Akiva: at the “council-of-Jamnia-that-wasn’t-a-council.” It’s interesting (and contrary to your case) that you bolded this particular quote: “Whether this development resulted from an official promulgation by accepted religious authorities, or whether it was the culmination of a long period of growth during which the masoretic type had always represented the mainstream of tradition can no longer be determined”—a statement which certainly questions Michuta’s certainty.

The bottom line is that there’s no historical record concerning the compilation of the Jewish biblical canon. There are rabbinic discussions recorded several hundred years after the fact—and of questionable historicity—that might provide a few clues. We have the Dead Sea Scrolls and we have codices from around the 9th to 10th centuries.

That having been said, I don’t think anyone would deny that after the destruction of the temple, the text is “moving toward stabilization”—but that’s a far cry from one standard text and canon that’s accepted by all Jews–or even all Palestinian Jews. Certainly that’s starkly not the case at Qumran where about 75% of the texts are “proto-masoretic” and 25% are Septuagintal. Your copy-and-paste correctly notes “hundreds” of rabbinic textual variants from what Michuta posits as a standard Jewish Biblical text—and in some cases that’s also hundreds of years after the period when the text was supposed to have already been standardized! That’s certainly not “unimpeachable authority” or textual “hegemony”!

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Part 3.

You said:Then we have a problem here. Is the translation erroneous, or based on a different text? You had better hope and pray the latter. If the former, how protected is the NT, as they quoted the Septuagint far more than the Masoretic?If the NT authors knew the Septuagint was corrupted, why use it? Is their use of the Septuagint so much the worse for Christianity over the last 2000 years?

You said:Jerome’s translation notes for the Pentateuch, emphasis mine:You sure his notes say he did not translate from the Hebrew?

One finds examples of both varying text types and of errors in translation. The example I quoted from Genesis shows two types of translation errors in the Septuagint–the first being an out-and-out misreading of the Hebrew (the translator just didn’t understand the verbal construction–that’s the “die the death” example) and one where the translator is taking unnecessary theologizing liberties with the Hebrew—translating “garden” as “paradise.” Jerome blithely carries these translation errors over from the Septuagint into the Vulgate. There are hundreds and hundreds of variants like this but I’m trying to keep the examples simple. As I’ve suggested twice now, and suggest again for a third time, you could compare the three texts yourself and see that this is the case. You certainly don’t have to take my word for it.

So, there are two logical possibilities: 1) Jerome didn’t really understand Hebrew or 2) Jerome is (often) copying from the Septuagint and not the Hebrew. I used to think #1 was the case, but after reading Jerome’s translation notes on Genesis, I realized that it’s mostly #2, and only occasionally #1.

When Jerome says he’s translating from the Hebrew text, it’s clear he’s just not being very honest but because people like Augustine don’t read any Hebrew and barely even read Greek for that matter, on one’s the wiser. To be fair, that’s not to say Jerome’s not using the Hebrew text and looking at and considering textual variants, but he’s often choosing the Septuagint over the Hebrew when there’s a problem–which as we’ve already discussed is probably due to his not wanting to rock the biblical boat too much since there had already been push back against his translation work for doing just that.

Again, you don’t have to take my word for it—read Jerome’s notes yourself. They are readily available in English.

The multiplicity of errors in the Septuagint and thus in its derivative texts (such as the Vulgate) is the driving force behind Pius XII’s finding in favor of the Masoretic Text in Divino Afflante Spiritu as I have already mentioned.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

You said:Jerome’s translation notes for the Pentateuch, emphasis mine:You sure his notes say he did not translate from the Hebrew?

What you refer to hear aren’t the type of translation notes to which I perviously referred to here, where Jerome documents a number of his specific translation choices and where in many cases you can tell whether he’s dealing with variant texts or translation errors–and where he often favors the Septuagint against his Hebrew Text:

amazon.com/Jeromes-Questions-Genesis-Christian-Studies/dp/0198263503/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1440005984&sr=8-1&keywords=Jerome+questions+in+genesis

 

[Duane1966]

Dave, does the NT have multiple errors since without a doubt they used the Septuagint for the majority of their quotes, and you feel the Septuagint has multiple errors?

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Dave, does the NT have multiple errors since without a doubt they used the Septuagint for the majority of their quotes, and you feel the Septuagint has multiple errors?

I haven’t studied how accurately the NT quotes the Hebrew Text, though I think the most famous misquote is probably of Isa. 7:14. But overall, I have no idea.

There’s a good reason that since 1943 the Catholic Church requires Bible translations to be from the original languages (Hebrew for the O.T. and Greek for the N.T.) and with this policy, discontinued the practice of making translations of translations. The Vulgate is “Exhibit A” in demonstrating why this is a very bad idea. But the early reformers and even Catholic scholars like Erasmus recognized these problems with the Septuagint and the Vulgate already in the 16th century when Hebrew became more widely studied in the West.

 

[benhur]

It is only relegated "fringe’’ in terms of any prologue and its history. The history can not be changed, that is the early tradition of the book before any canonizing. The actual canonizing from my understanding actually, most formally, took place at Trent (but yes , less formal at Hippo Carthage etc).

I do not think it “stupid” to say the gospel of John had the same informal, universal acceptance and circulation early on as say the book of James or Hebrews etc. The pre-canon church was very careful and by tradition categorized writings with words such as "universal’’ ,“doubtful”, "spurious’’, "forgery’’ etc.

One thing is recognizing the history of the book even with labels. Another is to include it in canon. In the end that is what matters.

Blessings

I meant to say, I do not think it “stupid” to say the gospel of John had more informal, universal acceptance and circulation early on as say the book of James or Hebrews etc.

 

[benhur]

Matt. 2:16 – Herod’s decree of slaying innocent children was prophesied in Wis. 11:7 – slaying the holy innocents.

vs 17 -" Then what had been spoken through Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled:"

Seems the explicit prophecy is Jeremiah not Wisdom ,which is more explicit towards Moses and Egypt.

Matt. 7:16,20 – Jesus’ statement “you will know them by their fruits” follows Sirach 27:6 – the fruit discloses the cultivation.

This one is a stretch also. Jesus says nothing about cultivation but about discerning a good or bad tree (leader) by its fruit. The Pharisees were very well cultivated yet… Again understand the similarity but still a stretch.

Blessings