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

[RobHom]

So here we have again Catholics accusing Protestants of removing books of the Old Testament…WHY DID THE ROMAN CATHOLICS ALSO REMOVE BOOKS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT (Septuagint)?

I’m not a “Bible Technician” by any means…however, the reality on one side is that “Protestant removal of books”…began some time ago…and while Luther did not throw out the Apocryphal books, he wanted to, and also wanted to throw out James as I understand it. He did not consider them “inspired”. They stayed though, and even the Apocryphal books were included in the original King James Version. King James required it to be so.

**The DR New Testament was first published by the English College at Rheims in 1582 A.D. The DR Old Testament was first published by the English College at Douay in 1609 A.D. The first King James Version was not published until 1611. This online DRV contains all 73 books, including the seven Deutero-Canonical books (erroneously called Apocrypha by Protestants). These seven books were included in the 1611 KJV, but not in later KJV Bibles.
**
It was later on that “others” than the Catholic Church that being later “reformers” removed the Apocryphal books. They do not appear in many “protestant” Bibles. Additionally, it is my understanding that insofar as the “protestant” Bibles are concerned, they in reality have a slightly different version of the “Old Testament”:

**It is interesting to note that the Palestinian Jews did not accept the 7 DC books for their version of Holy Scriptures and neither did they accept any of the New Testament. Unfortunately, the Protestants base their Bible on this version which comes from a people who did not accept Jesus Christ as the Messiah. ** drbo.org/intro.htm

So far as the authenticity of the Catholic Bible, this is what I know:

Pope Damasus assembled the first list of books of the Bible at the Roman Council in 382 A.D. He commissioned St. Jerome to translate the original Greek and Hebrew texts into Latin, which became known as the Latin Vulgate Bible and was declared by the Church to be the only authentic and official version, in 1546.

All of the information in bold came from here: drbo.org/intro.htm

I’ll keep reading responses. Hopefully, someone will actually give an answer.

Possibly reading some of the rest of the information on that site, you will find the answer you seek. I personally am not aware of any items that the Catholic Church removed from the Bible. I know that there were books that were determined to not be inspired and were even considered “gnostic” in nature and a few others that were considered “forgeries”… I once read a book a few years ago…titled something like “The 13 Books left out of the Bible”. And from what I could gather…from my non-technical layman’s point of view…they were left out for a reason.

Peace!!

 

[graceandglory]

st-takla.org/pub_Deuterocanon/Deuterocanon-Apocrypha_El-Asfar_El-Kanoneya_El-Tanya_10-Psalm151-El-Mazmoor-151.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psalm_151#Composition

part of the Pseudographia? Dead Sea Scrolls?

books.google.com/books?id=1u_QZmC8TesC&pg=PA189&lpg=PA189&dq=%22psalm+151%22+septuagint&source=web&ots=ih2D4TWSOe&sig=QrOpPCvUspaoe4kzlvI_-PDf_A8&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=6&ct=result

 

[RobHom]

StMarina303AD… Help me here…you are alleging that the Catholic Church has “removed” inspired scriptures from the Bible. OK, beyond the fact that two different versions of the OT existed prior to Christ’s time on earth…they were not the “Canon” of the Christian Bible, Catholic or otherwise. Were they not the Holy Books of the Jews?

Insofar as the New Testament, which did not exist prior to Christ’s time, and most having been written post-Resurrection, I know of nothing that has been changed deleted or modified other than translations…

Is it not possible that, as opposed to the Greek Orthodox Church “adding” anything, is it not possible that at some point in time a different Canon was adopted?

Is there a link to the Greek Orthodox Bible?

 

[PerryJ]

I certainly wish you a speedy recovery. I will pray for you and light a candle for you tomorrow at Evening Prayers at Church.

You claim that the Bible did not exist until the 3rd Century AD; however, the Septuagint (Old Testament) was compiled in it’s entirety in the 3rd Century BC. Jesus used it and quoted from it as we can see in Scriptures which have been included in the New Testament. I believe what is confusing you is that there were NO New Testament Scriptures yet complied into one volume with the Septuagint. The New Testament began being written and past around from Church to Church starting around the end of the 1st Century AD, but was not yet added to the Septuagint to be called as we know it now as the Bible.

Can you give us a source for your information.

Please give me the codex you are referring to in the third century bc that included all of these texts.

Who compiled this codex you are referring to?

 

[StMarina303ad]

Please answer my question. If they should be in the Bible did your faith add them back? If not why not?

I will research this area; however, I find your statement has no basis. The DCs were removed because of Luther’s personal fears and his losing a debate to Eck. Nothing more. The Dead Sea Scrolls have proven that the Protestant claim concerning the DC is totally unfounded. One can argue all they want and make up new arguments; however, scientific facts and secular history prove both of my points and show Protestants, with Sola Sciptura as a basis for their belief, is using the incorrect Bible. Your theology is based upon a personal belief proven wrong by facts. If you wish I can provide sources for all of my comments.

Perry, I somehow get the impression that you think I am a Protesant Christian (a baby of the Roman Catholic Church). I am not. I am an Orthodox Church whose roots are traced back to the Apostles: Peter (founded the Church in Antioch), Andrew (founded the Church in Byzantium/Constantinople), Mark (founded the Church in Alexandria), etc. Our Church (and our Bible & Liturgy) has not changed in the last 2 thousand years. We have, in Greek (the original language of the Church and the Bible), maintained the Septuagint in it’s entirety which is now called the Old Testament.

You are absolutely correct that after the Roman Catholic Church removed 2 books of the O.T. and Psalm 151 in the 1500’s the first of 30,000+ Protestant Churches was born and Martin Luther did remove additional books.

Everyone here on Catholic Answers should have a clear idea as to why Martin Luther did what he did by now; however, the question remains: Why did the Roman Catholic Church remove books from the Septuagint? The Septuagint, the version of the Old Testament that had been for hundreds of years before Christ and used and quoted by Christ Himself.

 

[MrS]

The Septuagint was already complied prior to Christ. Man have you missed it HUGE on this one!

Can we at least agree on the New Testament… that we have the same, and we should value them as inerrent?

And if so, can we both agree that Matthew 16:18ff is part of both of our Bibles.

And if so, why have the Orthodox removed the chair of Peter??



.

 

[anon52328184]

The Septuagint was already complied prior to Christ. Man have you missed it HUGE on this one!

i agree with you on this one st. marina.

 

[savedsinner]

Does anyone know the date(s) of the synods or councils in which the Orthodox churches established or reconfirmed their canon?

I know the Catholic church accepts the council of Rome in 382, the council of Hippo in 393, and the Council of Carthage III in 397

 

[Sir_Knight]

The Septuagint was already complied prior to Christ.

And what does that have to do with anything?

Man have you missed it HUGE on this one!

You’re accusing the Catholic Church of removing books from something that didn’t exist and I missed it? It would appear to be the other way around!

 

[StMarina303ad]

Who compiled this codex you are referring to?

The Hebrews in the 3rd century BC complied all of the Sacred Scripture and translated it from Hebrew into Greek, the language of the people, of the Roman Empire.

Again all of this happened pre-Christ. When Christ was born, it was from the Septuagint that He heard the written word of God. It was from the Septuagint that He quoted (as we can see in what we now have in the 4 Gospels). The Early Church continued to use what they’d already had and the Church (the Orthodox Church) continues to do so 2 thousand years later.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

So you’re saying that those books may have been good enough for Jesus, but not good enough for the Catholic Church.

That’s not what I said. I said just because it is in the Septuagint doesn’t mean it is divinely inspired.

Catholic Dude, your comment makes no sense at all considering the fact that the Septuagint existed before Christ was born into this world. Christ *used & quoted *the Septuagint himself. **The Greek Orthodox Church simply has maintained the use of the Septuagint without removing any of it’s books that were in it **(not in the appendix: such as 4th Macc.). ***As such the Greek Church has nothing to “prove”! ***It’s the Roman Catholic’s who removed the books of Sacred Scripture! The the Roman Catholic Church who must prove - twice in Sacred Scripture it warns people to NOT remove or add to Sacred Scripture. Why are the Roman Catholic in violation of this?

That is not what I said either. You mistakenly equated the Greek Orthodox Canon AS DEFINED BY AN ECF with the Septuagint. I said I don’t know of an ECF who embraced the GOC, I did NOT say I don’t know of an ECF who embraced the LXX. The West actually more readily admitted the Deutero-Canonical books than the East did.
bible-researcher.com/canon4.html
If it is as simple as you say, there should have been no dispute in the first place in the East. Further, as I already said, EO councils like the Confession of Dositheos only affirm the Catholic D-C books.

 

[StMarina303ad]

Does anyone know the date(s) of the synods or councils in which the Orthodox churches established or reconfirmed their canon?

There was no need to establish a canon which had already existed! The 49 books of the Old Testament.

The only Scriptures that needed to be affirmed was which books belonged in the New Testament. The Orthodox, Catholic and Protestants have no disagreement on this.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

PI am an Orthodox Church whose roots are traced back to the Apostles: Peter (founded the Church in Antioch), Andrew (founded the Church in Byzantium/Constantinople), Mark (founded the Church in Alexandria), etc.

Two problems here. First, Peter (and Paul) founded the See of Rome (the Apostolic See), the ECFs are very clear on this. Second, St Andrew did not found the See of Constantinople (which actually began in the early 300s), that is an EO fabrication with virtually no ECF support.

Back on topic.

 

[StMarina303ad]

That’s not what I said. I said just because it is in the Septuagint doesn’t mean it is divinely inspired.

If it wasn’t divinely inspired than why did Christ not abolish it along with the other man made customs He did do away with? He was here on earth and used the Septuagint and quoted from it.

I said I don’t know of an ECF who embraced the GOC

St. John Chrysostom, St. Basil, St. Gregory, etc., etc. There are plenty of Early Church Fathers who not only embraced the Greek Orthodox Church…they WERE Greek Orthodox Christians!

Ignorance of history is ignorace of the Orthodox Church, the Church Christ Himself established through His Apostles and by the Holy Spirit who continues to guide the Orthodox Church infallibly.

 

[Sir_Knight]

I certainly wish you a speedy recovery. I will pray for you and light a candle for you tomorrow at Evening Prayers at Church.

Thank you for your prayers.

You claim that the Bible did not exist until the 3rd Century AD; however, the Septuagint (Old Testament) was compiled in it’s entirety in the 3rd Century BC. Jesus used it and quoted from it as we can see in Scriptures which have been included in the New Testament. I believe what is confusing you is that there were NO New Testament Scriptures yet complied into one volume with the Septuagint. The New Testament began being written and past around from Church to Church starting around the end of the 1st Century AD, but was not yet added to the Septuagint to be called as we know it now as the Bible.

Why did both Catholic and Orthodox reject the Gospel of Thomas, an apostle, and accept the Gospel of Mark who wasn’t an apostle?

When you answer that question, you will also have the answer to why the Catholic Church did not include the books that you made reference to.

 

[StMarina303ad]

Two problems here. First, Peter (and Paul) founded the See of Rome (the Apostolic See), the ECFs are very clear on this. Second, St Andrew did not found the See of Constantinople (which actually began in the early 300s), that is an EO fabrication with virtually no ECF support.

Back on topic.

To answer your “problems”:

First of all St. Peter, long before he stepped foot in Rome, founded the Church in Antioch. You are correct that a couple of years before he was martyred for the Faith, he did go to Rome to meet with Paul and together they founded the Church in Rome.

Second of all: St. Peter’s older brother St. Andrew did travel to Byzantium and founded the Church there where he was martyred. You are correct that it wasn’t until Constantine embraced Christianity as the religion of the Rome Empire that he moved the Rome Empire’s Capitol to Byzantium which he renamed Constantinople (it is now called Istanbul and is located in modern day Turkey).

Ignorance of History is Ignorance of the Orthodox Church.

 

[RobHom]

You are absolutely correct that after the Roman Catholic Church removed 2 books of the O.T. and Psalm 151 in the 1500’s the first of 30,000+ Protestant Churches was born and Martin Luther did remove additional books.

Which of the two versions of the OT do you use?

Everyone here on Catholic Answers should have a clear idea as to why Martin Luther did what he did by now; however, the question remains: Why did the Roman Catholic Church remove books from the Septuagint? The Septuagint, the version of the Old Testament that had been for hundreds of years before Christ and used and quoted by Christ Himself.

Without questions being answered, its just rather difficult to answer the question you are asking…

This article here will show you what I mean:

department.monm.edu/classics/Speel_Festschrift/sundbergJr.htm

 

[StMarina303ad]

Thank you for your prayers.

Why did both Catholic and Orthodox reject the Gospel of Thomas, an apostle, and accept the Gospel of Mark who wasn’t an apostle?

When you answer that question, you will also have the answer to why the Catholic Church did not include the books that you made reference to.

I have continually made reference to the Old Testament, the Sacred Scripture that was around since before Christ.

The Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Mark were written after Christ’s birth, death and resurrection. The Church (Orthodox & Catholic) made a determination as to which books would become known as the New Testament. They decided on 27 books. Again this is not the issue at hand.

The Roman Catholic Church removed books from what we know today as the Old Testament. The Old Testament Canon was not debated and had remained constant since several hundred years before Christ was born. Christ Himself while on earth used the Septuagint.

 

[PerryJ]

The Hebrews in the 3rd century BC complied all of the Sacred Scripture and translated it from Hebrew into Greek, the language of the people, of the Roman Empire.

Again all of this happened pre-Christ. When Christ was born, it was from the Septuagint that He heard the written word of God. It was from the Septuagint that He quoted (as we can see in what we now have in the 4 Gospels). The Early Church continued to use what they’d already had and the Church (the Orthodox Church) continues to do so 2 thousand years later.

The reason I ask for a codex was to define whether you actually have a Septuagint Bible that supports your post. It appears that you do not have a codex from the 3rd century BC that has these books or verse in them. Your post starts with the assumption that these books and verse existed in a known Septuagint from the 3rd Century. If you do provide a source.

It would appear to me that there were different version of the Septuagint and your books and verse where not in all of them. How do you know that your later version of text is the correct one.

Please give me your source that shows that your version of the Septuagint is correct verses the RCC. I would like to do more research as this does interest me.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

If it wasn’t divinely inspired than why did Christ not abolish it along with the other man made customs He did do away with? He was here on earth and used the Septuagint and quoted from it.

I’m not sure Jesus actually quoted the LXX, I don’t think Jesus taught in Greek. The Evangelists did though. But that is not the point. The only man made customs that were condemned were ones which used Scripture and traditions towards ungodly ends. Something that is not divinely inspired doesn’t mean it is twisting or used for ungodly ends.

St. John Chrysostom, St. Basil, St. Gregory, etc., etc. There are plenty of Early Church Fathers who not only embraced the Greek Orthodox Church…they WERE Greek Orthodox Christians!

You are brushing off the evidence I am providing. Show me lists of the canon in those ECF writings. The link I gave you shows ECFs like St Athanaisus, St Gregory, St Cyril of Jerusalem, etc who doubted the D-C books, that is odd if the LXX was accepted wholesale.
And, again, the Confession of Dositheos only mentions the Catholic D-C books.