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

[MagicKirk]

fyi
This is the text of Psalm 151:
Psalm (151)
This Psalm is ascribed to David and is outside the number. When he slew Goliath in single combat.
(This Title given in the Septuagint)

1 Little was I among my brethren:
A younger brother in my father’s house.
2 My hands, they made an instrument of music:
My fingers, they prepared a psaltery.
3 And who shall bring back tidings to my master?
The Lord Himself, Himself gives ear.
4 Himself sent forth His messenger:
And took me from among my father’s sheep;
And with the oil of His annointing He annointed me.
5 Comely my brethren were and tall:
And yet they found not favour with the Lord.
6 But I, I sallied forth to meet the alien:
And he reviled me by all his idols.
7 But I drew forth the sword that was beside him:
I cut his head off with it,
And from the sons of Israel removed reproach.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Still no answer at Catholic Answers.

Lots of accusations against the Orthodox Church which I simply don’t have the time to address them all.

How convenient. You don’t have the time to address the questions possed to you but fault others for not answering your questions.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

How convenient. You don’t have the time to address the questions possed to you but fault others for not answering your questions.

It’s panic time!

 

[peregrinus_sg]

While Orthodox generally consider extra books found in the Septuagint as canonical, I haven’t been able to find any decision or decree that explicitly list them as canonical. For example, the most authoritative decision on this matter, the 1672 Council of Jerusalem, merely stated:

Following the rule of the Catholic Church, we call Sacred Scripture all those which Cyril collected from the Synod of Laodicea, and enumerated, adding thereto those which he foolishly, and ignorantly, or rather maliciously called Apocrypha; to wit, “The Wisdom of Solomon,” “Judith,” “Tobit,” “The History of the Dragon,” “The History of Susanna,” “The Maccabees,” and “The Wisdom of Sirach.” For we judge these also to be with the other genuine Books of Divine Scripture genuine parts of Scripture. For ancient custom, or rather the Catholic Church, which hath delivered to us as genuine the Sacred Gospels and the other Books of Scripture, hath undoubtedly delivered these also as parts of Scripture, and the denial of these is the rejection of those. And if, perhaps, it seemeth that not always have all been by all reckoned with the others, yet nevertheless these also have been counted and reckoned with the rest of Scripture, as well by Synods, as by how many of the most ancient and eminent Theologians of the Catholic Church; all of which we also judge to be Canonical Books, and confess them to be Sacred Scripture.

I have no confirmation whether the above, extracted from Catholicity, was correctly translated and would be glad if someone could confirm or correct that. If it is correct, there is no room for the inclusion of Psalm 151, 1 Esdras or the Prayer of Manaseh since these could not be included in the (Protestant) edition brought by Cyril mentioned in the quotation, and were not enumerated. I’m assuming that readers have some familiarity with the history of the controversy brought by a now-disgraced Patriach of Constantinople Cyril Lucas.

Earlier canons by the Eastern Fathers also do not list many of the books found in the Septuagint, famous among which is the list by St Athanasius in his Easter letter:

As the heretics are quoting apocryphal writings, an evil which was rife even as early as when St. Luke wrote his gospel, therefore I have thought good to set forth clearly what books have been received by us through tradition as belonging to the Canon, and which we believe to be divine. For there are in all twenty-two books of the Old Testament. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. After this comes Joshua, and Judges, and Ruth. The four books of the Kings, counted as two. Then Chronicles, counted the two as one. Then First and Second Esdras. After these Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Cantica. To these follow Job, and the Twelve Prophets, counted as one book. Then Isaiah, Jeremiah together with the Epistle of Baruch, the Lamentations, Ezekiel, and Daniel.

Most scholars consider the reference to First and Second Esdras to refer to Ezra and Nehemiah, rather than the apocryphal 1 and 2 Esdras of today.

So the early Christians, including those of the Church of the East, recognized a distinction between books in the Septuagint and canonical books. It was probably with a gradual “deification” (for lack of a better word) of the Septuagint that the OP thought that all the books of the Septuagint were accepted as Scripture by the Eastern Churches.

 

[Trishie]

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.

Thank you for your question. An interesting post!
Hopefully the combatitive second post was only that kind of internet chat that sounds less kindly than intended. We don’t always realise how we sound!

Many people are asleep at this time, and some are not scripture experts, so it is wise to allow some time before those able to respond to a particular thread are awake or are available rather than to make judgements about motives.

May God of wisdom and love abundantly bless you in your enquiries and in all aspects of your life, Trishie.

 

[PerryJ]

Still no answer at Catholic Answers.

Lots of accusations against the Orthodox Church which I simply don’t have the time to address them all.

The Russians and Serbians were converted to Orthodox Christianity do to the missionary efforts of the Greek Orthodox Church = their Sacred Scripture came to them through us.

Coptics separated themselves from the Orthodox Church over the issue of Christ being fully human and fully God which means He has 2 Natures. Coptics only believe in 1 Nature of Christ and separated themselves a very long time ago. With them being separated from the Orthodox Church who knows what they have done with their Scripture? That may be a question for Coptic Answers. However, we are on Catholic Answers which is why I dared to ask about why the Catholics removed books of Sacred Scripture here.

Since there has still remained NO ANSWER to my question after this has reached 7 pages of posts, there really is no point in me checking tomorrow and reading any further.

The fact we know is that the Orthodox Church maintains what it received from Christ the Full Septuagint. The Septuagint was translated by 70 scholars in the 2nd or 3rd Century BC and Christ used it and never in his ministry told the Apostles that there were too many books in the Septuagint and never told the Apostles that some of the books were not inspired by the Holy Spirit - we know that to be fact because if He had we would have Tradition telling us it happened.

Someone said I was frustrated and yes over the last 24 hours I have become frustrated because everyone who has responded (save a couple) have attempted to either: brush the Sacred Scripture under the rug - the very Word of God in print - which I find very offensive to the Holy Spirit who inspired it, attack the Orthodox Church or simply call me names for bring up the subject and I don’t care about any of that, but the really frustrating part of it is through it all NO ONE HAS GIVEN AN ACTUAL ANSWER.

I have provided an answer to you. Sources cleary state that the two books you refer to were not created in the 3rd century BC and most scholars do not believe they were created until after Christ’s death. What other answer do you want. They did not exist and were not part of the original Septuagint. Your original statement is false.

Just because you do not like the answer doesn’t make it untrue.

 

[chrisb]

Still no answer at Catholic Answers.

Lots of accusations against the Orthodox Church which I simply don’t have the time to address them all.

The Russians and Serbians were converted to Orthodox Christianity do to the missionary efforts of the Greek Orthodox Church = their Sacred Scripture came to them through us.

Coptics separated themselves from the Orthodox Church over the issue of Christ being fully human and fully God which means He has 2 Natures. Coptics only believe in 1 Nature of Christ and separated themselves a very long time ago. With them being separated from the Orthodox Church who knows what they have done with their Scripture? That may be a question for Coptic Answers. However, we are on Catholic Answers which is why I dared to ask about why the Catholics removed books of Sacred Scripture here.

Since there has still remained NO ANSWER to my question after this has reached 7 pages of posts, there really is no point in me checking tomorrow and reading any further.

The fact we know is that the Orthodox Church maintains what it received from Christ the Full Septuagint. The Septuagint was translated by 70 scholars in the 2nd or 3rd Century BC and Christ used it and never in his ministry told the Apostles that there were too many books in the Septuagint and never told the Apostles that some of the books were not inspired by the Holy Spirit - we know that to be fact because if He had we would have Tradition telling us it happened.

Someone said I was frustrated and yes over the last 24 hours I have become frustrated because everyone who has responded (save a couple) have attempted to either: brush the Sacred Scripture under the rug - the very Word of God in print - which I find very offensive to the Holy Spirit who inspired it, attack the Orthodox Church or simply call me names for bring up the subject and I don’t care about any of that, but the really frustrating part of it is through it all NO ONE HAS GIVEN AN ACTUAL ANSWER.

Grace and Peace,

I still, personally, believe this whole question is addressed by seriouslly looking at the work of St. Jerome and his role in translating the scriptural text for the Latin Vulgate. St. Jerome drew from both the Hebrew and the Greek LXX (i.e. Septuagint) and not simply the Septuagint alone. This seems to suggest the source of the different ordering of some of deuterocanonical text.

As I understand it there is no ‘official’ canon for the Orthodox. Such appears to have not ever to have been determined in council from what I know. I could be wrong I’m not as familiar with the more recent history of Orthodox Synods and such to say with any certainty. After the scrutiny of the Deuterocanonical texts by the Reformation I’m not sure the Catholic Church had a choice in the matter and simply canonized what they had historically used (the Latin Vulgate) as canonical. We in the West make a ‘really’ big deal about with ‘is’ and what ‘is not’ part of the canon. I honestly don’t see that as historically tenable when we find sacred texts and apocryphal text side by side and even embedded in the Liturgies of Sts. James, Basil and John Chrysostom.

This seems to be overblown in order to build a wedge issue between the East and West.

I would simply ask that we exercise great caution in our posturing on this issue.

 

[Jolly_Joe]

I think they do not answer because they don’t really know.

For the answer, you have to understand the different kinds of canons. With it’s emphasis on Tradition, it’s easy to miss how the Orthodox Churches use the canon of scripture. There are those scriptures read in church, for edification and education. This is the wider canon which includes the deuterocanonicals. Then there is the narrower canon, which has a higher authority. Due to the emphasis on Tradition, it’s easy to miss in Orthodoxy that any scripture is really authoritative.

Anyway, we have the Western canon, which really looks to the Vulgate in much the same way the East looks to the Septuagint. One thing that is assumed in your position is that the Septuagint has always contained the books it now contains which was clearly not the case, they were added and it was standardized over time. Even the early Septuagints we have which start around the 5th century were still not completely standardized, it was common to be missing or have some additional books.

The basic difference being Jerome didn’t just provide a translation but also prefaces. In them he spelled out what was and wasn’t authoritative scripture. And so we see the historic practice of the Catholic Church with a narrower authoritative canon, and a wider ecclesiatical canon. Two of the books of Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh ended up in an appendix to the Vulgate. And over time, many copies included Paul’s Letter to the Laodicians. But it was very similar.

Anyway, the regional Council of Trent blurred the distinction between the wider and narrower canons in the West. So while you complain of them not treating some of the deuterocanonicals with the same honor as the East, they also treat the other deuterocanonicals with more honor than the East.

The closest in the Western Churches to the Orthodox in practice are the Lutherans and Anglicans who continued to read from the deuterocanonicals. A practice not as widely done today likely due to influence from other Protestants but still approved.

3 Maccab is a somewhat special case since it is in an appendix in some Septuagint traditions today. Not universally used in the East, and not on the same level as the other books.

If you get a bit past the language, you find there is more agreement than disagreement, with the Catholic raising of the deuterocanonicals, and the common complete disregard by many Protestants today being outside the norm.

Catholics get confused over this, and I see in your first post you parrot their confusion, saying that Martin Luther removed books. You could make that case only for what is 1 and 2 Esdras in the Protestant canon. He never did translate them, but then they were in the appendix of the Vulgate and so not considered scripture of any sort in the West.

What Luther did was take the resources he had and he followed them. The Massoretic text of course was the Jewish canon. He had a Septuagint, but that had no commentary associated with it. Then the Glossa ordinaria, the standard reference explanation of scripture in the West which made the explicit strong statement that the Deuterocanonicals were not scripture. Then two approved Latin translations done between the time of Luther’s New and Old Testaments. One of which labelled the deuterocanonicals as not being scripture. The other of which was the first translation to put the deuterocanonicals into a separate section. Something usually claimed to be an innovation of Luther. And then there was of course Erasmus’ Greek text, but that didn’t influence canon. So it causes difficulty in understanding because Catholics want to teach that Luther created a new, different canon, and what he really did was follow the teachings as he received them concerning canon from the Catholic Church.

Many people of course weren’t aware of the differences a fact pointed out by the Glossa ordinaria. It was unfortunate but education had become a mess in the west with many Bishops and such really not even able to read Latin but who had bought their bishophrics and positions. And the masses were not taught much if anything about things like canon. So in the fight against the Protestants the position of the Catholic church was changed, but it was quite important to teach that it had always been like the new position in order to make the case that the new people were enemies of the historic faith.

Anyway, that’s a basic synopsis of the answer. I doubt you will like it and I know Catholics won’t.

JJ

 

[tm30]

The basic difference being Jerome didn’t just provide a translation but also prefaces. In them he spelled out what was and wasn’t authoritative scripture.

This is a moot point, because Jerome was not the Pope, and had no claim on infallibility in faith and morals. His idea of what was authoritative was his opinion, but not binding, and not enjoying infallible protection/guidance of the Paraclete. The only canon that matters is the one ratified by Pope Damasus.

 

[juliamajor]

Lxx Kethuvim(Writings- the books under question in the East and West) were in flux for a very long time. Torah was set early- and as you know Sadducees only excepted the Torah. The Neviim were next- excepted by the Pharisees and general populace.writings were last and canonized much latter around 100 AD or even later. In the Church canon has been determined by -which books are held in high regard?Do the seem inspired? Do they contradict other accepted writings(these books were in and fell out, and fell back into favor)Were they universally accepted? were they used in liturgy? Are there messages consistent with the other books.? problem east and west held different books in different regard- some gained and lost favor over the centuries . Not all the deuteros fit into all the criteria- especially liturgical use.Catholic Church has no problem with your canon- so what’s the beef? you seem to have an inordinate amount of hatred towards RC church and RC’s. I really think God is more worried about us not getting along with each other and treating each other like we of the same Body, then facetious arguments over incidentals

 

[banjo]

Regarding Ezra, the following is from an article by Rev. P. Simson, W.F., S.T.L., L.S.S…"In the early Heb. Bible Ez and Neh formed one book entitled ‘The Book of Ezra’. …] In the LXX there are two Gr. Versions. These are the two texts, Ezra A and B. Ez B corresponds to the canonical Ez-Neh, while Ez A is the apocryphal 3 Ez to be found in the Vg Appendix. According to most scholars, the latter is probably due to a compiler who wished to describe the history of the temple and divine worship from the Passover of Josiah to the full restoration at the time of Ezra, Neh 8. It seems to have been compiled before the LXX version, Ez B, was made. It was used by Josephus and was cited by not a few Fathers as inspired, but from the 5th cent. it was considered by all as apocryphal."

 

[MarcoPolo]

the regional Council of Trent blurred the distinction between the wider and narrower canons in the West.

a) Trent isn’t a “regional” Council.
b) Trent didn’t “blur” any canons. It has been the same since the 4th century.

 

[Jolly_Joe]

Sure it was a regional council. It wasn’t even well attended by Catholics. Most regional councils had more participants than Trent.

And it did blur. Your contention the canon of scripture as the Catholics have it today stayed the same since the 4th Century is unsupported by the Catholic Church and her practices and teachings throughout the centuries.

Isn’t it amazing that no one told Jerome that the canon had been authoritatively set? Not to be confused with including books in the Vulgate.

The supposed decretal by the Pope has conclusively been shown to be one more false decretal in the history of the Catholic Church. It extensively quotes from Augustine even though Augustine wrote what he wrote some 40 years after the decretal was supposedly written.

And it appears the council of Rome was also altered after the fact.

There is some support from the regional councils, but then even those as received don’t perfectly agree and so on.

What we see through the centuries of practice is that the Catholic Church followed what was written in Jerome’s prefaces in the Vulgate. A narrower canon which was the authoritative source of doctrine and the wider canon used for reading and edification but not for doctrine.

That of course gest more blurred when the other False Decretals became the foundation of the Pope and scripture really became unnecessary in Rome to create dogma.

Trent blurred the distinction in canons but even after Trent, the deuterocanonicals are still not generally used for doctrine. If you underwent an exorcism for instance, animal entrails would not be uused as would be the case if the deuterocanon was authoritative.

Nor is idolatry taught to be a less than mortal sin as it would have to be if the deuteros were authoritative and so on.

So by and large, the RCC still follows the historic practice concerning the deuteros even while condemning anyone who doesn’t hold them higher in name than Rome does in practice.

JJ

 

[tm30]

The supposed decretal by the Pope has conclusively been shown to be one more false decretal in the history of the Catholic Church. It extensively quotes from Augustine even though Augustine wrote what he wrote some 40 years after the decretal was supposedly written.

If it were a false decretal, it would have been exposed as such when it was published. With all of the fractures that occured among the heretics in the Church, would you care to explain why none of them leaped upon such a golden opportunity to prove the Church a liar, when the decretal was issued?

You say that the decretal quotes extensively from Augustine, but nowhere do you prove that it wasn’t Augustine quoting from the decretal.

Your position does not compute.

 

[PerryJ]

Sure it was a regional council. It wasn’t even well attended by Catholics. Most regional councils had more participants than Trent.

And it did blur. Your contention the canon of scripture as the Catholics have it today stayed the same since the 4th Century is unsupported by the Catholic Church and her practices and teachings throughout the centuries.

Isn’t it amazing that no one told Jerome that the canon had been authoritatively set? Not to be confused with including books in the Vulgate.

The supposed decretal by the Pope has conclusively been shown to be one more false decretal in the history of the Catholic Church. It extensively quotes from Augustine even though Augustine wrote what he wrote some 40 years after the decretal was supposedly written.

And it appears the council of Rome was also altered after the fact.

There is some support from the regional councils, but then even those as received don’t perfectly agree and so on.

What we see through the centuries of practice is that the Catholic Church followed what was written in Jerome’s prefaces in the Vulgate. A narrower canon which was the authoritative source of doctrine and the wider canon used for reading and edification but not for doctrine.

That of course gest more blurred when the other False Decretals became the foundation of the Pope and scripture really became unnecessary in Rome to create dogma.

Trent blurred the distinction in canons but even after Trent, the deuterocanonicals are still not generally used for doctrine. If you underwent an exorcism for instance, animal entrails would not be uused as would be the case if the deuterocanon was authoritative.

Nor is idolatry taught to be a less than mortal sin as it would have to be if the deuteros were authoritative and so on.

So by and large, the RCC still follows the historic practice concerning the deuteros even while condemning anyone who doesn’t hold them higher in name than Rome does in practice.

JJ

I am still amazed the Protestants even try and use Jerome in any discussions. First Jerome at times did make statements against the DCs. He also used these very same books. Jerome uses Baruch, Esther Sirach and Wisdom in his commentaries. In some of his commentaries he states that these books are in fact scripture. I can provide instances if you wish.

Jerome came to his conclusion to not use the DC books as his Masoretic Text did not contain them. This was an error of the text. Nothing more as the Dead Sea Scrolls have proved that all of the DC books except two were written in Hebrew. Jerome falsely assumed something and it has been proven incorrect.

Concerning the council and the canon of scripture it was not needed until Jerome because everyone prior to Jerome accepted them. Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytgus, Clement, Origen, the first truly textual critique, Dionysius, Methodius, Ambrose and Chrysotom all accepted the DCs. Should I go on with the list?

The DCs were removed from the Bible because Luther was losing a debate to Johann Eck and had to use Jerome’s list of canonical books because he had to refute Maccabees. Nothing more. Your Bible is missing books from the true Bible because Luther was losing a debate. Do not make it sound better than it is.

If Protestants truly believe in Jerome why do they not follow his teachings. Here is a quote from Jerome "I speak with the successor of the fisherman and disciple of the cross. I, who follow none but Christ as first, am joined in communion with your holiness , that is with the see of Peter. On this rock I know the Church was built. Whoever eats the lamb outside this house is profane. Whoever is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the deluge comes…Whoever does not gather with you scatters for whoever does not belong to Christ is of Antichrist.

Jerome was obedient to the Pope and Rome. As you follow his thoughts concerning the Bible, which have been proven wrong by history, will you follow his other teachings. He is Catholic. I am would guess he doesn’t like people using his words against the faith that he believed in.

 

[tm30]

Isn’t it amazing that no one told Jerome that the canon had been authoritatively set? Not to be confused with including books in the Vulgate.

Additionally, you continue to avoid the point that Jerome’s opinion, though highly regarded, was only an opinion. At the end of the day, it’s meaningless if it conflicts with the Magisterium. He was a translator who spent a great deal of time in Palestine, and so felt strongly that the Greek books were not canonical.

If Jerome were in open disobedience to the Magisterium,

a. He would never have been canonized
b. He would have been publicly condemned (like Origin and Tertullian), and
c. The supposedly nefarious, lying Catholic Church (which you portray us as) would have destroyed all traces of his work, right?
Since the Church is all about subterfuge, according to you, why didn’t they erase any hint of his disagreement?

 

[Jolly_Joe]

Additionally, you continue to avoid the point that Jerome’s opinion, though highly regarded, was only an opinion. At the end of the day, it’s meaningless if it conflicts with the Magisterium. He was a translator who spent a great deal of time in Palestine, and so felt strongly that the Greek books were not canonical.

If Jerome were in open disobedience to the Magisterium,

a. He would never have been canonized
b. He would have been publicly condemned (like Origin and Tertullian), and
c. The supposedly nefarious, lying Catholic Church (which you portray us as) would have destroyed all traces of his work, right?
Since the Church is all about subterfuge, according to you, why didn’t they erase any hint of his disagreement?

Correct, he wasn’t punished because he wasn’t in conflict. The Catholic Church would not have continued to copy his prefaces for hundreds of years if they thought it was spreading pernicious lies about scripture. There would, at the least have been glosses to correct him. Oh, but the standard gloss did not correct Jerome, it agreed with him.

The only public criticisms I know of Jerome came from those who had turned the Septuagint into an object of worship and they were displeased with him that he did not do similarly.

JJ

 

[chrisb]

Correct, he wasn’t punished because he wasn’t in conflict. The Catholic Church would not have continued to copy his prefaces for hundreds of years if they thought it was spreading pernicious lies about scripture. There would, at the least have been glosses to correct him. Oh, but the standard gloss did not correct Jerome, it agreed with him.

The only public criticisms I know of Jerome came from those who had turned the Septuagint into an object of worship and they were displeased with him that he did not do similarly.

JJ

Grace and Peace,

You seem to be interested in claiming Jerome for Luther but was it not Luther who desired to reform even the Sacred Scriptures by removing those Epistles which didn’t agree with his own Gospel?

 

[MarcoPolo]

I am still amazed the Protestants even try and use Jerome in any discussions.

Your position does not compute.

With respect to Jolly Joe, I went over this with him in January (see this thread posts 69-81). When confronted with early variations in what constituted the canon, the Church had to settle this by Her authority. The earliest councils of Rome and Carthage, etc…(see a good Cantofrom this thread) were recognized as maintaining the canon on through today. Jolly Joe considers that authority the 9th century “Glossa Ordinaria”, for reasons I am unclear on, but the document openly admits to echoing Jerome.

Jerome used the Deuterocanonical books inconsistently with regard to calling them Scripture (examples). For any objections he did have, he ultimately submitted to the authority of the Catholic Church, which is why the Deuterocanonical books are in the Vulgate. His opposition to these books was in turn met with opposition and he faced a debate from the translator Rufinus. Much of this story with original texts can be read in Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger.

Finally, Trent was an ecumenical council, not regional.

 

[Chellow]

Sure it was a regional council. It wasn’t even well attended by Catholics. Most regional councils had more participants than Trent.

Can you kindly post the council that you state had more books then the Catholic Church in the Bible, If you cant please retract your statement.