Why are not all the books of the Septuagint included in the cannon?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tammyjean
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Tammyjean

Guest
Hi there,

I am very new here and new to learning about the Catholic faith. It has been quite a journey.

I am talking an evangelical Christian who has just flipped that I would even consider Catholicism and we have had some talks going back and forth. Her question, which is a good one is…If the Septuagint (LXX) was considered scripture at the time of Jesus why didn’t the Catholic Church include them all? Apparently there are some books from the LXX not included. Can someone please help with this or direct me?

Thanks a bunch!

Tammy
 
Was there something specific that you were concerned about?

The Septuagint is called 70 because it is the work of 70 scholars who translated the Jewish Scriptures into Greek. The only ones I can think of that were excluded were the [Book of Esdras] (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05535a.htm) (which is sometimes included in various Bibles) and the Prayer of Manasseh (which is sometimes included in 2 Chronicles).
The Roman Catholic Council of Trent in 1546, which officially recognized several books of the Apocrypha, listed “the first book of Esdras, and the second” as part of the biblical canon. However, these are the books we normally call “Ezra” and “Nehemiah” today and are not to be confused with the pseudepigraphal 1 and 2 Esdras (which appeared in the Vulgate as 3 and 4 Esdras).
If you click the link on the Book of Esdras, it goes into more detail about the history/naming/content than I can copy-pasta. But basically, to sum up, Esdras 1 = Book of Ezra; Esdras 2 = Book of Nehemiah; Esdras 3 = a lot of redundancy with other canonical material; and Esdras 4 = incomplete and hasn’t been preserved in the original Greek, but was included in the Vulgate and was well-known to early Church Fathers.
 
Last edited:
On page 172 of Gary Michuta’s book, “Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger,” there is a table of early copies of the Septuagint and the books they contain. I bring it up because I think it shows, perhaps, that there are not more books in the Septuagint than we have as Catholics.

Based on the information Michuta gives, the earliest copy of the Septuagint in existence is the Vaticanus codex from the 4th century. It contains all of the Old Testament – including the Deuterocanon, except the Maccabees. It does not contain additional books.

The next earliest is the 4th century Sinaiticus codex, which is missing Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Ruth, Baruch, Ezekiel, and Daniel, but includes the rest. It does not contain additional books.

The next earliest is the fifth century Alexandrinus codex, which lacks 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings, and 1 and 2 Chronicles, but contains all the Deuterocanon. It also includes 3-4 Maccabees and 1 Esdras, but not 2 Esdras or the Prayer of Manasseh. (I mention those last three documents because some Orthodox accept them as canonical – but they are not in the oldest copies of the Septuagint that we have.)

The next earliest is the fifth century Ephraemi Rescriptus, which has only Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Job, Wisdom, and Sirach. It does not contain additional books.

Finally, there is the eighth century Codex Basilano-Vaticanus-Venetus, which lacks only Genesis, Exodus, Psalms, and the last chapter of Baruch. It also adds 3 and 4 Maccabees, but not the Prayer of Manasseh or the two Esdras books.

All of these manuscripts contain books from the Deuterocanon placed among the other Books of Scripture, but the majority of them do not appear to include 3-4 Maccabees, the Prayer of Manasseh, or the two Esdras books. (BTW Ezra and Nehemiah are two books that all Christians accept as canonical, and those are sometimes called 1 and 2 Esdras in older literature. The manuscripts I mentioned above Do contain those. But there are also two other books called 1 and 2 Esdras, which only the Orthodox accept as canonical, and those are the ones I am talking about in this post. As Catholics we count them as apocryphal.)

We can summarize the table this way (assuming I wrote down my notes correctly and Michuta’s table was complete):

There are 5 copies of the Septuagint in Michuta’s table on page 172 of his book.

5 of them contain Wisdom;
5 of them contain Sirach;
4 of them contain Judith; the one that lacks it lacks most of the Old Testament;
4 of them contain Tobit; the one that lacks it lacks most of the Old Testament;
3 of them contain Baruch; those that lack it lack much or most of the Old Testament;
3 of them contain 1 Maccabees; one of those that lacks it lacks most of the Old Testament;
2 of them contain 2 Maccabees; two of those that lack it lack much or most of the Old Testament.

2 of them contain 3 Maccabees;
2 of them contain 4 Maccabees;
1 of them contains 1 Esdras;
0 of them contain 2 Esdras;
0 of them contain the Prayer of Manasseh.

Anyway, I hope that helps. Please let me know. Perhaps you could get Gary Michuta’s book for more information.
 
Last edited:
Turn it around: Ask her if she is Lutheran. Why? She holds to Luther’s two favorite doctrines: bible as sole rule of faith, and the 66 book canon. Ask her by what authority her New International Version contains only 66 books. Luther said so! If she trusts him on these two foundational elements of post-reformation Christianity, why not trust him on his other beliefs as well? Ask her where the 66 book canon came from, and why.

Luther, in his hatred of the Catholic Church, went to the descendants of the Pharisees to embrace their canon - a canon that specifically excluded books that they believed were prophetic of Christ. Why would a Christian even think of adopting that canon? Especially after reading Matthew 23. Surreal.
 
Last edited:
The Roman Catholic Council of Trent in 1546, which officially recognized several books of the Apocrypha.
Just a small, but important distinction. Those texts were not “Apocrypha” (writings or statements of dubious authenticity), they are deuterocanonicals (disputed texts). There are also deuterocanonicals in the New Testament, too.

Lujther wanted to rip out of the New Testament the Books of James, Hebrews, and Revelations I believe. He hated the book of James because it refuted his heretical notion of faith alone. He called James, “An Epistle of Straw.”

On that issue, Luther was confronted at the time as to why he added the word “alone” to the text of Paul, when the only place it appears is in the book of James who says that faith alone is not sufficient. Here is what Luther said in response:
“You tell me what a great fuss the Papists are making because the word ‘alone’ is not in the text of Paul. If your Papist makes such an unnecessary row about the word ‘alone,’ say right out to him: ‘Dr. Martin Luther will have it so,’ and say: ‘Papist and asses are one and the same thing.’ I will have it so, and I order it to be so, and my will is reason enough. I know very well that the word ‘alone’ is not in the Latin or the Greek text, and it was not necessary for the Papists to teach me that. It is true those letters are not in it, which letters the jackasses look at, as a cow stares at a new gate…It shall remain in my New Testament, and if all the Popish donkeys were to get mad and beside themselves, they will not get it out.”
 
Last edited:
Luther, in his hatred of the Catholic Church, went to the descendants of the Pharisees to embrace their canon - a canon that specifically excluded books that they believed were prophetic of Christ. Why would a Christian even think of adopting that canon? Especially after reading Matthew 23. Surreal.
Yes, Luther took the Palestinian Canon establish by the rabbis in around 100AD. The problem is that the rabbis were no longer in authority. They had no authority to establish canon. The Chair of Moses had ceased along with the Mosaic covenant when Christ died on the Cross. The new Magisterium was established by Christ upon Peter – the Chair of Peter.

Thus, it is the Catholic Church, and the Catholic Church alone, in her Magisterium resting upon the Chair of Peter, who has the authority directly from Christ to make such decisions.
 
Last edited:
One article which clarifies much of the debate is 5 Myths about 7 Books, written by Mark Shea. Elaborating on this a bit, Q: Which “protestant” authority convened a council, like the Church did in Acts 15, to decide that these books were not inspired and should be left out of the bible? A: None. From its very beginnings, protestantism fractured so sharply that councils were impossible. That alone violates the bible. So, the term “Apocrypha” was given those 7 books later in the “reformation” by someone, to express their opinion that these books had a lesser status. Again, by what authority? Only that of certain men, as the Church which Christ founded made no such ruling. Quite the opposite: Christ’s Church ruled that the 7 books were indeed, canonical.

Another point is that most of the Old Testament quotes given in the New Testament were taken from the Septuagint version of the Old Testament. Not all of them, but most. What must be understood about protestantism in general is that it rejected specific Catholic (and Orthodox) teachings and practices, solely because they were “Catholic.” This is not how one arrives at revealed truth. This is how one fashions a self-made religion that remains Christian, but bears little resemblance to what Christ taught and commanded about His Church.

In the reformation (do not confuse “reform” with restoration or improvement - it was a radical alteration), if Martin Luther deemed it good, it was good. If he did not like it, it was bad - often being declared to be evil. The Catholic Church in the 16th century was filled with sinners as it is today. However, Luther replaced many abuses with his own abuses, and radically changed Christianity, while calling it the same. But - and this is the elephant in the living room - Luther’s Church carries his own name!

The sad fact is that protestantism, whatever that is today, often calls Catholicism a “man-made” religion, while the reformation is clearly the most man-made movement in all of Christianity. Not one of the reformers had any authority at all to form doctrines or to teach their opinions as truth.

Jesus said “You will know them by their fruits.” The fruits of the reformation are division and discord.
 
Everyone here has given me amazing answers that are so so helpful!!!

Thank you VERY much!! I was getting overwhelmed and my head was spinning. You guys broke this down for me so it can be fact checked and answered!!!

Blessings!

Tammy
 
I am still getting some hard questioning…specifically why weren’t the two books of Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh left in? I am having a hard time answering that part of the question? The question is if they were part of the Septugint that Jesus and the Apostles used then why aren’t they included today. They were also in Jerome’s vulgate?

Thank you again!

Tammy
 
What evidence does he have that they were part of the Septuagint? You can’t just claim that without giving evidence. In my previous list I provided evidence that they were not in the Septuagint – because no copies of the early Septuagint codices exist which contain them except one, and that one only contains 1 Esdras, not 2 Esdras or Manasseh. So that’s evidence that they were not in the Septuagint – what is his evidence that they were?
 
The short answer is that certain books containing theological error, or simply ancient tales, were handed on “lest they perish completely.” There is some value in them but, being put to the test, they were not inspired by God.
 
I am so confused at this point on what she is trying to say. We have just decided to drop it. She is very very hostile toward the Catholic faith, I mean like wow. No matter how logical my presentation or what support I showed from Protestants she just kept arguing and making no sense.

I am very appreciative of everyone’s responses!! I have downloaded to my kindle the book ‘why Catholic bibles are bigger’ and I will make sure I am more prepared for next time and pray for her.

Her family is from the Philippines and they left Catholicism when she was 8. She remembers statutes in her home and offerings of food to them plus she believes they worshiped Mary. Her family left and joined the evangelical christian charismatic movement. I try and explain that Catholics don’t worship Mary and she told me that’s what they tell me but they really are among a million other illogical things. I can’t explain the food offerings but I haven’t researched it. We are not talking about it anymore.

Thank you again everyone!! I really appreciate it!!!

Tammy
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top