J
jersen05
Guest
i was just wondering how do we prove that the bible must have 73 books? and why do we have the septuigint.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
I
InspiritCarol
Guest
This spells it out well:i was just wondering how do we prove that the bible must have 73 books? and why do we have the septuigint.
cin.org/users/james/files/deuteros.htm
The REAL question that needs answering is: why DON’T they have the Septuagint?
The main reason is because then they would have to admit that the issues they have with Catholicism are of their own creation.
It’s so very sad that with so much information at our fingertips, good people of God choose to be mired down by old lies and half-truths.
M
Mark77
Guest
**Jersen,i was just wondering how do we prove that the bible must have 73 books? and why do we have the septuigint.
Excellent questions!
First, we don’t have to prove the Bible has 73 books, the Catholic Church already told us so. Those who falsely claim 66 books need to prove why 7 books were removed? That is exactly why Jesus left us Peter as the first Pope & the Catholic Church, to guide us to the Fullness of the Truth!
As St. Augustine said; “I would put no faith in the Gospels unless the authority of the Catholic Church directed me to do so.”
Why the Septuagint?
According to Father Frank Chacon & Jim Burnham in their chapter entitled “The Canon of the Bible” in Beginning Apologetics I, pg. 10 (an excellent book to own!)
FOUND HERE; shop.catholicapologetics.com/category.sc;jsessionid=C1AF49FC41742893CE8FB80E64A0095E.qscstrfrnt06?categoryId=2;
"The Protestant OT is based on the Hebrew canon used by Hebrew-speaking Jews in Palestine. The Catholic OT is based on the Greek canon used by Greek-speaking Jews throughout the Mediterranean, including Palestine…the Septuagint was the translation used by Jesus & the New Testament writers.
The great majority of the quotes found in the NT are from the Septuagint. Protestant authors Archer & Chirichingo, for example, list 340 place where the NT sites the Septuagint, but only 33 places where it cites from the Hebrew canon rather than the Septuagint. By this count, the NT writers quote from the Septuagint over 90% of the time. Remember also that the NT was written in Greek…
But here is the real question: Which OT would you rather use-the OT used by Jesus, the NT writers & the early Church, or the OT used by later Jews who had rejected Christ & persecuted Christianity?
**
Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!
mark
S
Scoobyshme
Guest
I would recommend you view the 3-part video series “Origin of the Bible” at the following link:i was just wondering how do we prove that the bible must have 73 books? and why do we have the septuigint.
alabamacatholicresources.com/Bible.html
It should answer all your questions, including why we have the Septuagint.
C
catholicarchie
Guest
why don’t we have the other books in the Septuagint that the Eastern Orthodox use?
E
Epistemes
Guest
You raise a good question about canonicity, which is a touchy and rather discretionary topic and one which is, in my opinion, blown out of proportion. Catholics point to texts like Tobit and 2 Maccabees and claim that current Catholic customs are evident in the text. Read Scott Hahn’s “Signs of Life” for more on this. However, other than that, and other than a few daily lectionary readings, the texts are hardly ever touched. Not that the texts are worthless. On the contrary, deutero- and non-canonical texts only serve to enlighten us about the New Testament.
Consider 1 Enoch, which the Letter of Jude cites. One of the central figures featured in this text is a transcendent heavely being who is called variously “the Son of Man,” “the Chosen One,” “the Righteous One,” and “the Anointed One.” These titles and the manner in which the author depicts this figure indicate that this heavenly being is the embodiment of four characters in biblical literature: the “one like a son of man” in Daniel 7:13-14; the Servant of the Lord in Isaiah (52:13-53:12); the Anointed One of the Lord found in the Psalms and Proberbs; and heavenly Wisdom in Proverbs 8, who existed before creation. All of these titles were later bestowed upon Jesus, likely due to the fact that members from the community which composed 1 Enoch joined the early Christian movement and, combined with their knowledge of the Synoptics and John, relayed their tradition concerning a pre-existent, heavenly being who would come to Earth as a human being, correct humanity’s corrupt, sinful ways, then suffer and die for the sins of mankind. It’s remarklable, then, isn’t it, that even though the Church still interprets the above prophetic passages as referring to Jesus, 1 Enoch, once regarded as Sacred Scripture by some of the early Church Fathers, did not find its way into the canon?
Again, the canon is a highly discretionary topic. I recommend purchasing a Bible with the full Apocrypha. As I said above, deutero- and non-canonical texts only serve to enlighten us about the world of the New Testament.
Consider 1 Enoch, which the Letter of Jude cites. One of the central figures featured in this text is a transcendent heavely being who is called variously “the Son of Man,” “the Chosen One,” “the Righteous One,” and “the Anointed One.” These titles and the manner in which the author depicts this figure indicate that this heavenly being is the embodiment of four characters in biblical literature: the “one like a son of man” in Daniel 7:13-14; the Servant of the Lord in Isaiah (52:13-53:12); the Anointed One of the Lord found in the Psalms and Proberbs; and heavenly Wisdom in Proverbs 8, who existed before creation. All of these titles were later bestowed upon Jesus, likely due to the fact that members from the community which composed 1 Enoch joined the early Christian movement and, combined with their knowledge of the Synoptics and John, relayed their tradition concerning a pre-existent, heavenly being who would come to Earth as a human being, correct humanity’s corrupt, sinful ways, then suffer and die for the sins of mankind. It’s remarklable, then, isn’t it, that even though the Church still interprets the above prophetic passages as referring to Jesus, 1 Enoch, once regarded as Sacred Scripture by some of the early Church Fathers, did not find its way into the canon?
Again, the canon is a highly discretionary topic. I recommend purchasing a Bible with the full Apocrypha. As I said above, deutero- and non-canonical texts only serve to enlighten us about the world of the New Testament.
S
Spencerian
Guest
Hi.why don’t we have the other books in the Septuagint that the Eastern Orthodox use?
Catholic and Orthodox Old Testament books differ primarily because of the effect that the Vulgate had on the Eastern world. St. Jerome (who helped codify this first all-Latin translation of Sacred Scripture) apparently wasn’t too big on the deutrocanonicals. Many of the Eastern churches not only appreciated the deutrocanonicals but added a few there were not canonized at the various Synods of the 2nd century. All of this preferential treatment of a handful of deuterocanonical texts happened over the fifth to the ninth centuries.
By the time of the Great Schism, many Greek churches had evolved into acceptance of a handful of other books found in their versions of the Septuagint that were not part of the Latin canon. For more on historical evolution, see this article.
The Orthodox books in the OT that aren’t found in the Roman canon today include 1st and 2nd Esdras, Prayer of Manasseh, Psalm 151 and 3rd Maccabees.
Both Catholic and Orthodox New Testament books are identical in source.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.