Why did Roman Catholics remove books from the Old Testament: Septuagint?

[StMarina303ad]

Okay, so we all know by now that the version of the Old Testament that was around at the time of Christ was the Septuagint which was translated from Hebrew into Greek at the request of some king or something from Alexandria around 200 or 300 BC. It was translated into Greek at that time because Greek was the common language of the people and most people in the Temple/Synogoges couldn’t understand Hebrew so it was pointless to read the Sacred Scripture in Hebrew (kind of like the Latin ended up becoming to common people - “it’s all greek to me” aka no one could understand it).

So anyway, we know that when Jesus read the passage for the day, he was reading from the Septuagint.

We all, if we’ve been on here and read the Catholic Apologetics material, know that it was Martin Luther who removed: Tobit, Judith, 1 & 2nd Macc., Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch and chunks of Esther and chunks of Daniel from the Old Testament. He did that in the 1500’s and he did that based on going to a local synogoge and mimiking what the Jews had in their Bibles in the 1500’s. He didn’t realize or didn’t care to learn or simply overlooked the fact that around 70 AD the Jewish leaders got together after the destruction of the Temple and all these crazy Christians taking over their Synogoges and they decided to remove all parts of Scripture that weren’t originally written in Hebrew and those that were not written within a certain vicinity of Jeruselem. In reality, the Protestants have not just removed 7 books, they have removed 10 entire books of Sacred Scripture plus Psalm 151, parts of Daniel and parts of Esther!

BUT WHY, I WONDER, DID THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH REMOVE: 1st Ezra (the Ezra in the NAB version of the Bible which is the official English version of the Catholic Bible as seen on the Vatican’s website: www.vatican.va is actually 2nd Ezra in the Septuagint. 2nd Ezra in the NAB version of the Bible is actually Nehemiah in the Septuagint), **3rd Macc and Psalm 151? **I seem to remember here something about not trying to take a splinter out of someone else’s eye (Protestants) until you get the beam out of your own eye (Catholics).

The Septuagint has 49 Books in it as does the Orthodox Old Testament Bible - the Greek Orthodox have always maintained the original Greek Bible (Old & New Testaments). The Roman Catholic Bible only has 46 Old Testament Books in it. The Epistle of Jeremiah was added as Chapter 6 in the book of Baruch in the Catholic Bible rather than as a separate book as in the Septuagint which is why the Catholics are missing 2 full books and 1 Psalm rather than 3 books.

 

[StMarina303ad]

Over 30 minutes later no responses. Can’t say that wasn’t unexpected. I will look forward to looking at this tomorrow to see if anyone has come up with an actual answer to this problem which seems to just get swept under the rug.

The Catholic Apologists are probably hoping that no one will notice this discrepency as they jide Protestants for removing books of Sacred Scripture since the Catholic Church is guilty of exactly the same thing.

This could be interesting, if someone responds.

 

[estesbob]

Over 30 minutes later no responses. Can’t say that wasn’t unexpected. I will look forward to looking at this tomorrow to see if anyone has come up with an actual answer to this problem which seems to just get swept under the rug.

The Catholic Apologists are probably hoping that no one will notice this discrepency as they jide Protestants for removing books of Sacred Scripture since the Catholic Church is guilty of exactly the same thing.

This could be interesting, if someone responds.

Frankly I dont see the problem. There are dozens of “books” the Church did not put in the offical cannon. it didnt take any out-it just never included many, many books.

 

[Matariel]

So? The Ethiopian Orthodox Church has 81 (Even more, according to some) books in their canon. How do we know that they are not correct? And also, the Roman Catholic Church never stated that their canon was complete; only that the books within it were inspired. perhaps there were more.

 

[sancte_joseph]

Over 30 minutes later no responses. Can’t say that wasn’t unexpected. I will look forward to looking at this tomorrow to see if anyone has come up with an actual answer to this problem which seems to just get swept under the rug.

The Catholic Apologists are probably hoping that no one will notice this discrepency as they jide Protestants for removing books of Sacred Scripture since the Catholic Church is guilty of exactly the same thing.

This could be interesting, if someone responds.

ha your funny …i had to respond so you wouldn’t soak in your own pride…O NO! now i’m soaking in my own ignorance

well i don’t what your talking about…there is no Psalm 151
and the other that you said…

I guess what you MISUNDERSTAND is that the bishops and all the other leaders of the church at that time decided what was truly inspired by God…which kinda puts the Magisteriam (authority of the church) over sola scriptura because the former made the latter

 

[mark_a]

Over 30 minutes later no responses. Can’t say that wasn’t unexpected. I will look forward to looking at this tomorrow to see if anyone has come up with an actual answer to this problem which seems to just get swept under the rug.

The Catholic Apologists are probably hoping that no one will notice this discrepency as they jide Protestants for removing books of Sacred Scripture since the Catholic Church is guilty of exactly the same thing.

This could be interesting, if someone responds.

Are the Orthodox in agreement about which books should be in the OT?

My understanding is that the Roman Church has declared that the 73 books in our bible are inspired and none are to be excluded. Other Churches can have more. Some Eastern Catholic Churches have more.

Are there any implicit or explicit Orthodox teachings that come from the books not included in the Roman canon?

 

[Catholic_Dude]

The closest “official” EO canon I have ever come across was from the Confession of Dositheos, which affirms only the Roman Catholic Deutero-Canonical books.

I would like to see some Early Church Father support for your specific canon. I have not done much research into the issue, but I don’t ever recall any ECF who embraced the Greek Orthodox Canon.

Early on it must have been recognize that some books of the Septuagint were not divinely inspired, and thus were never put on the same level as Scripture.

 

[JimG]

The issue is discussed here, although not at great length. The Church did not accept every part of the septuagint as canonical, such as the Prayer of Manasseh, 1-2 [3-4] Esdras, 3-4 Maccabees.

While the septuagint might be considered the closest thing the Jews had to a “canon” at the time, it was actually not an official canon. In any case, the Church in discerning the canon was under no obligation to accept the entire listing for its own canon.

 

[estesbob]

I am following this thread with great interest becuase I still dont see what the problem is. if someone wants to start a thread on how the canon was arrived at that is one thing but to claim the Church threw a book out by the nature of not including it makes no sense to me.

 

[JimG]

Here is a link to another brief discussion of the OT canon.

 

[Matariel]

I don’t know if this has anything to do with anything, but my Anglican Bible has 1 and 2 [3 & 4] Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh.

 

[anon52328184]

I don’t know if this has anything to do with anything, but my Anglican Bible has 1 and 2 [3 & 4] Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh.

yes, i think the bible used by the anglicans even has 2 or 3 more books than the catholic bible. it also has bel and the dragon and suzanna.

psalm 151 is the psalm that is added that i think was taken out of the protestant bibles.

 

[Matariel]

yes, i think the bible used by the anglicans even has 2 or 3 more books than the catholic bible. it also has bel and the dragon and suzanna.

psalm 151 is the psalm that is added that i think was taken out of the protestant bibles.

Yeah, it has Bel & the Dragon, and Suzannah, but these are the same as Additions to Daniel accepted by the Roman Christians, no? As for Psalm 151, there are also 152-155, but apocryphal.

As far as I know, the Ethiopian Orthodox have the largest canon: 81 + books, including Little Genesis, Enoch, Gospel of Mary, and the Fragmentary Gospel of Peter.

 

[anon52328184]

Yeah, it has Bel & the Dragon, and Suzannah, but these are the same as Additions to Daniel accepted by the Roman Christians, no? As for Psalm 151, there are also 152-155, but apocryphal.

As far as I know, the Ethiopian Orthodox have the largest canon: 81 + books, including Little Genesis, Enoch, Gospel of Mary, and the Fragmentary Gospel of Peter.

this is the first i have ever heard of the ethiopian orthodox bible, so i couldn’t answer that. i have never heard of little genesis before or the fragmentary gospel of peter.

 

[Publisher]

In my own private devotions…and I know other Friends who use the same edition, I use the “Oxford Study Bible, w/DC books”.

This edition was originally published in the '70’s under the title “Common Bible”. It contained the books from most of the traditions of Christianity. It included the books the CC holds canonical as well as the books the Orthodox hold canonical. It does contain Psalm 151, 3&4th Maccabees, 3&4 Esdras. It does not included at this time those texts which the Ethiopian Orthodox use such as Jubilees and Enoch.

I use the 2nd edition RSV. I’ve used it for 20 years now. The 3rd edition has a few more books in it and is dubbed “expanded”.

Most fundamentalist groups called this edition of the Bible “satanic” and it fell out of use among most “mainline groups” and never caught on among the conservative…many in the Episcopal church uses it still, as I believe their liturgy and scripture readings use some of the D/C books. I have attended a “Spiritual Journey’s” group held in an Episcopal meeting hall and found hard back editions in the “Bible rack” along with the BOCP.

I have enjoyed this edition immensely as it reflects the Light as understood by all who would follow Him.

 

[MrS]

As I type this, a recording is being made which will be available in the very near future.

The speaker is Gary Michuta who wrote “Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger”

This book is the first (perhaps only) serious work on the subject of the Deuterocanonicals. Admittedly, the topic is a dry one, but it re-emphasises the importance of the Scriptures, the Bible, being a work of the Holy Spirit as He used the Catholic Church to give the world a teaching tool.

The talk should be available soon, perhaps to simply download, at biblechristiansociety.com/

.

 

[MarcoPolo]

As I type this, a recording is being made which will be available in the very near future.

The speaker is Gary Michuta who wrote “Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger”

Please post a link to that talk when you have it.

Here also are interviews with Gary Michuta on that very book:
Gary Michuta on MP3Catholic Answers Live
Gary Michuta on radio MP3Kresta in the Afternoon

In this thread, I’m with estesbob. But I do think the OP raises an important question as to who has the authority to identify canonical Scripture.

 

[PerryJ]

Okay, so we all know by now that the version of the Old Testament that was around at the time of Christ was the Septuagint which was translated from Hebrew into Greek at the request of some king or something from Alexandria around 200 or 300 BC. It was translated into Greek at that time because Greek was the common language of the people and most people in the Temple/Synogoges couldn’t understand Hebrew so it was pointless to read the Sacred Scripture in Hebrew (kind of like the Latin ended up becoming to common people - “it’s all greek to me” aka no one could understand it).

So anyway, we know that when Jesus read the passage for the day, he was reading from the Septuagint.

We all, if we’ve been on here and read the Catholic Apologetics material, know that it was Martin Luther who removed: Tobit, Judith, 1 & 2nd Macc., Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch and chunks of Esther and chunks of Daniel from the Old Testament. He did that in the 1500’s and he did that based on going to a local synogoge and mimiking what the Jews had in their Bibles in the 1500’s. He didn’t realize or didn’t care to learn or simply overlooked the fact that around 70 AD the Jewish leaders got together after the destruction of the Temple and all these crazy Christians taking over their Synogoges and they decided to remove all parts of Scripture that weren’t originally written in Hebrew and those that were not written within a certain vicinity of Jeruselem. In reality, the Protestants have not just removed 7 books, they have removed 10 entire books of Sacred Scripture plus Psalm 151, parts of Daniel and parts of Esther!

BUT WHY, I WONDER, DID THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH REMOVE: 1st Ezra (the Ezra in the NAB version of the Bible which is the official English version of the Catholic Bible as seen on the Vatican’s website: www.vatican.va is actually 2nd Ezra in the Septuagint. 2nd Ezra in the NAB version of the Bible is actually Nehemiah in the Septuagint), **3rd Macc and Psalm 151? **I seem to remember here something about not trying to take a splinter out of someone else’s eye (Protestants) until you get the beam out of your own eye (Catholics).

The Septuagint has 49 Books in it as does the Orthodox Old Testament Bible - the Greek Orthodox have always maintained the original Greek Bible (Old & New Testaments). The Roman Catholic Bible only has 46 Old Testament Books in it. The Epistle of Jeremiah was added as Chapter 6 in the book of Baruch in the Catholic Bible rather than as a separate book as in the Septuagint which is why the Catholics are missing 2 full books and 1 Psalm rather than 3 books.

If you believe they should be there did your faith add them back? Why not?

 

[MarcoPolo]

BUT WHY, I WONDER, DID THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH REMOVE: 1st Ezra (the Ezra in the NAB version of the Bible which is the official English version of the Catholic Bible as seen on the Vatican’s website: www.vatican.va is actually 2nd Ezra in the Septuagint. 2nd Ezra in the NAB version of the Bible is actually Nehemiah in the Septuagint), 3rd Macc and Psalm 151?

p.s. there is no “official English version” of the Catholic Bible.

p.s.s. in this paragraph you start by saying the Church “removed” certain books, but then proceed to argue that they just re-named or re-ordered them. Which is it? Perhaps if you provided a link to your source it might clear things up.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Okay, so we all know by now that the version of the Old Testament that was around at the time of Christ was the Septuagint which was translated from Hebrew into Greek at the request of some king or something from Alexandria around 200 or 300 BC. It was translated into Greek at that time because Greek was the common language of the people and most people in the Temple/Synogoges couldn’t understand Hebrew so it was pointless to read the Sacred Scripture in Hebrew (kind of like the Latin ended up becoming to common people - “it’s all greek to me” aka no one could understand it).

So anyway, we know that when Jesus read the passage for the day, he was reading from the Septuagint.

We all, if we’ve been on here and read the Catholic Apologetics material, know that it was Martin Luther who removed: Tobit, Judith, 1 & 2nd Macc., Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch and chunks of Esther and chunks of Daniel from the Old Testament. He did that in the 1500’s and he did that based on going to a local synogoge and mimiking what the Jews had in their Bibles in the 1500’s. He didn’t realize or didn’t care to learn or simply overlooked the fact that around 70 AD the Jewish leaders got together after the destruction of the Temple and all these crazy Christians taking over their Synogoges and they decided to remove all parts of Scripture that weren’t originally written in Hebrew and those that were not written within a certain vicinity of Jeruselem. In reality, the Protestants have not just removed 7 books, they have removed 10 entire books of Sacred Scripture plus Psalm 151, parts of Daniel and parts of Esther!

BUT WHY, I WONDER, DID THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH REMOVE: 1st Ezra (the Ezra in the NAB version of the Bible which is the official English version of the Catholic Bible as seen on the Vatican’s website: www.vatican.va is actually 2nd Ezra in the Septuagint. 2nd Ezra in the NAB version of the Bible is actually Nehemiah in the Septuagint), **3rd Macc and Psalm 151? **I seem to remember here something about not trying to take a splinter out of someone else’s eye (Protestants) until you get the beam out of your own eye (Catholics).

The Septuagint has 49 Books in it as does the Orthodox Old Testament Bible - the Greek Orthodox have always maintained the original Greek Bible (Old & New Testaments). The Roman Catholic Bible only has 46 Old Testament Books in it. The Epistle of Jeremiah was added as Chapter 6 in the book of Baruch in the Catholic Bible rather than as a separate book as in the Septuagint which is why the Catholics are missing 2 full books and 1 Psalm rather than 3 books.

The Catholic Church assembled the Bible in the late third century. Prior to that there was no bible. There were scriptures but no bible. The Catholic Church decided, based on their knowledge of the faith and through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, which Christ promised would guide His Church in all truths, which scripture was to be included in the bible and which scripture was not. They decided, for example, that the Gospel of Mark (even though Mark was not an actual Apostle but a disciple of Peter) SHOULD be included but the Gospel of Thomas should NOT be included. The same applies to the books that you made reference to.

When they were done, they had produced the bible – version 1.0 and to this day, it remains version 1.0 … the Catholic Church has not added or subtracted anything from it’s pages.