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

[Sir_Knight]

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.

If they had the authority to do that with establishing the NT, then why did they lack the authority to do so for the OT?

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.

Can you please provide specifically which verses of the Septuagint that is not included in the bible that Jesus references and where in the NT did He reference them?

 

[savedsinner]

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.

Well according to this chart you are incorrect, not all the churches had the same books in the old testament. Therefore it would have been necessary to standardize what was accepted in the councils that I mentioned.
Chart of Old Testament Biblical Canons

As far as I can find on the internet, the Orthodox churches didn’t set their canon until the synod of Jerusalem in the year 1672, which would be almost 1,300 years after the Catholic church set it’s canon.

 

[StMarina303ad]

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??



.

Remember that the “chair of Peter” was in Antioch for years (wasn’t it about 30 years) before Peter stepped foot in Rome.

Besides the Church Fathers agree that that passage was refering to the Faith not the person of Peter.

And the Church Fathers also agree clearly that the Ecumenical Councils which gave the order of the Patriarchates gave Rome listed first among equals soley because of it’s being the capitol of the Roman Empire. When the Capitol of Rome changed to Byzantium (renamed Constantinople) it held the same honor of Rome; however, allowed Rome to maintain the honor as the ancient Roman See.

Read History and the Church Fathers as they are extremely clear on the matter. People only get confused when they read the History and Church Fathers when they forget that the Church was the Church of Rome (the Roman Empire) if you left the Church of Rome you left Christianity all together because you left the only Christian Church - some people get confused thinking that it is the Patriarchate of Rome (as in the old Roman Empire Capitol - the city of Rome) rather than the Church of Rome (as in the entire Roman Empire which included the Patriachates of: Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jeruselem).

If the importance was in the Person of Peter rather than his confession, than we would see Antioch (where Peter first established the Church) as 1st in the order of honor or at the very least at the 2nd in place in honor; however, it ranks 4th because the order of honor had nothing to do with the Apostles who founded the Church in those cities, but in the secular (Roman Empires) importance of the cities in question.

 

[theistgal]

Can’t believe no one has responded yet re the supposed “removal” of Psalm 151:

Nothing has been “removed” - the Psalms are simply numbered differently. Psalm 18 (the very long one) has been divided in half in some translations, and the 2nd half renumbered as “Psalm 19”, which throws the remaining psalms off by one number - which is why some bibles have 150 Psalms and some have 151. But the text is the same - nothing has been “removed”.

That’s it - nothing sinister - no conspiracies - just a slightly different numbering.

Nothing to see here, folks. Move along now.

 

[StMarina303ad]

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.

The Orthodox Church is my source. There is now an English Translation of the Septuagint (which was original written in Greek and maintained in Greek by the Greek Orthodox Church without change since the beginning of the Christian Church). You can find the English Translation at: orthodoxstudybible.com/ I’d encourage everyone who wants to have the full Sacred Scripture to obtain one.

 

[StMarina303ad]

Can’t believe no one has responded yet re the supposed “removal” of Psalm 151:

Nothing has been “removed” - the Psalms are simply numbered differently. Psalm 18 (the very long one) has been divided in half in some translations, and the 2nd half renumbered as “Psalm 19”, which throws the remaining psalms off by one number - which is why some bibles have 150 Psalms and some have 151. But the text is the same - nothing has been “removed”.

That’s it - nothing sinister - no conspiracies - just a slightly different numbering.

Nothing to see here, folks. Move along now.

There is a difference. I’ve compared the texts. You are correct that there are 2 different #ing of the Psalms; however, Psalm 151 is clearly missing from the Catholic Old Testament and from the Old Testament of Protestant Bibles. Psalm 151 text is completely missing - not included under a different chapter.

 

[savedsinner]

Psalms

The printed Hebrew Bible lists 150 psalms. Fewer are given by some Massoretic manuscripts

The older Septuagint manuscripts (Codd. Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Alexandrinus) give 151, but expressly state that the last psalm is not canonical: “This psalm was written by David with his own hand and is outside the number”, exothen tou arithmou.

 

[MrS]

Remember that the “chair of Peter” was in Antioch for years (wasn’t it about 30 years) before Peter stepped foot in Rome.

Besides the Church Fathers agree that that passage was refering to the Faith not the person of Peter.

And the Church Fathers also agree clearly that the Ecumenical Councils which gave the order of the Patriarchates gave Rome listed first among equals soley because of it’s being the capitol of the Roman Empire. When the Capitol of Rome changed to Byzantium (renamed Constantinople) it held the same honor of Rome; however, allowed Rome to maintain the honor as the ancient Roman See.

Read History and the Church Fathers as they are extremely clear on the matter. People only get confused when they read the History and Church Fathers when they forget that the Church was the Church of Rome (the Roman Empire) if you left the Church of Rome you left Christianity all together because you left the only Christian Church - some people get confused thinking that it is the Patriarchate of Rome (as in the old Roman Empire Capitol - the city of Rome) rather than the Church of Rome (as in the entire Roman Empire which included the Patriachates of: Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jeruselem).

If the importance was in the Person of Peter rather than his confession, than we would see Antioch (where Peter first established the Church) as 1st in the order of honor or at the very least at the 2nd in place in honor; however, it ranks 4th because the order of honor had nothing to do with the Apostles who founded the Church in those cities, but in the secular (Roman Empires) importance of the cities in question.

Yeah, right…maybe the protestant church fathers… who deny the existence of one and only one Church founded by Christ… that is, the Catholic Church.

Whereever the Pope is, there is the Church… it is the OFFICE of the pope that is important, because it is the OFFICE that must be filled… and it currently resides in Rome.

Your history is not historical, sorry to say.

.

 

[StMarina303ad]

If they had the authority to do that with establishing the NT, then why did they lack the authority to do so for the OT?

The Orthodox Church has the infallible ability to define that which is and is not the part of the original faith given to them by Christ as the Church is founded on Christ and directed by the Holy Spirit.

Christ used the Septuagint when He was with the Apostles. They continued the use of the Septuagint which was already in Greek, the language of the people, hence no ‘version’ or ‘translation’ of the Septuagint was needed - they had the original. They maintained this through out the centuries, up to the present day.

Recently, it has been translated into English so the likes of us (who don’t speak Greek) can have it and read it as did Christ Himself.

 

[StMarina303ad]

Yeah, right…maybe the protestant church fathers… who deny the existence of one and only one Church founded by Christ… that is, the Catholic Church.

Whereever the Pope is, there is the Church… it is the OFFICE of the pope that is important, because it is the OFFICE that must be filled… and it currently resides in Rome.

Your history is not historical, sorry to say.

.

Since when is St. John Chrysostom not a Church Father? Since when has St. Basil ever been considered a Protestant? St. Gregory? and so many others?

As a Catholic you should know that there are no Protestant Early Church Fathers! The Catholic Church did not give birth to the Protestant Churches until the 1500’s.

The Roman Catholic Church split from us, officially in 1054, (although a several centuries earlier they already showed signs of slipping away). The Protestants then split from the Roman Catholic Church about 500’s later and have been continuing to split from Rome and from each other ever since. Too bad the Roman Catholic Church didn’t remain a part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church aka the Orthodox Church. They we as Christians wouldn’t have all the divisions among us. The Roman Catholic Church is welcome to come back home to Orthodoxy at any time! Come home.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Christ used the Septuagint when He was with the Apostles. They continued the use of the Septuagint which was already in Greek, the language of the people, hence no ‘version’ or ‘translation’ of the Septuagint was needed - they had the original. They maintained this through out the centuries, up to the present day.

I ask again, can you please provide specifically which verses of the Septuagint that is not included in the bible that Jesus references and where in the NT did He reference them?

 

[JimG]

When did the Jews establish a canon for the Old Testament? Did the Jewish canon consist of the Septuagint?

If the Jews did establish a canon, would it have been necessary for the Church to have accepted the Jewish canon as its own OT canon? Did the Church accept that the Jews had the authority to establish canonicity?

 

[estesbob]

When did the Jews establish a canon for the Old Testament? Did the Jewish canon consist of the Septuagint?

If the Jews did establish a canon, would it have been necessary for the Church to have accepted the Jewish canon as its own OT canon? Did the Church accept that the Jews had the authority to establish canonicity?

This thread has absolute nothing to do about the canon of Scripture and everything to do is St Marina telling us how superior the Orthodox church is to every other church on the face of the earth. Note that most of his answers don’t even have any do with Scripture anymore. Just rants about the Catholic Church falling away and 1054 and what church got founded in in what order and which church is more important than the other church.

I think he/she is suffering from a massive inferiority complex.

 

[StMarina303ad]

When did the Jews establish a canon for the Old Testament? Did the Jewish canon consist of the Septuagint?

If the Jews did establish a canon, would it have been necessary for the Church to have accepted the Jewish canon as its own OT canon? Did the Church accept that the Jews had the authority to establish canonicity?

The Jews, after Christ, in about 70 AD came together after the Temple was destroyed and Christians were overrunning their synogoges and decided to change their Canon of Scripture & to translate it back into Hebrew. The changes they made can be found in a Protestant Old Testament as Martin Luther 1500’s later went to a local synogoge and copied what the Jews were using for his own Old Testament.

In about 3rd Century BC is when 70 Translators, each in separate cells, by the power of the Holy Spirit translated each word and phrase exactly as the other 69 translators had, the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek. Anyone who speaks more than 1 language can tell you this was a miracle as there are so many ways to say the same thing and translations always very (even if just slightly). But this was a miracle of God - His word. They called this the Septuagint. Based on the Greek word for 70, in honor of the 70 translators.

 

[StMarina303ad]

I ask again, can you please provide specifically which verses of the Septuagint that is not included in the bible that Jesus references and where in the NT did He reference them?

There is only a Greek Version of the Septuagint at the time of Christ and if the Catholics have since changed the Septuagint into Latin around the 700’s when they began using Latin in the Liturgy, I couldn’t tell you. I can tell you that the Orthodox Church has always maintained it in Greek and in each place the Orthodox open up missions, they translate the Septuagint into the language of the people. It was translated into the Slavic by Sts. Cyril and Methodius once they created the Slavic written language. It has recently been published in English as well.

As you well know, Jesus did not quote the entire Septuagint in the New Testament books of the Bible. But everywhere in the Gospels that Jesus quoted from, what we now call the Old Testament, He was quoting from the Septuagint. He also amazed the people at the Temple when he was 12 when he was teaching them from the Septuagint.

 

[StMarina303ad]

This thread has absolute nothing to do about the canon of Scripture and everything to do is St Marina telling us how superior the Orthodox church is to every other church on the face of the earth. Note that most of his answers don’t even have any do with Scripture anymore. Just rants about the Catholic Church falling away and 1054 and what church got founded in in what order and which church is more important than the other church.

I think he/she is suffering from a massive inferiority complex.

My question has everything to do with Sacred Scripture and why don’t Roman Catholics use the full Sacred Scripture as it was handed to us before Christ’s death and resurrection?

I am doing my best to answer every question as it comes to me. Some questions are coming to me about the Catholic Church vs. Orthodox Church so I am answering those misconceptions as well.

To be honest with you, I am frustrated that 5 pages into this thread not one Catholic has been able to come up with a reason that the Roman Catholic Church removed books from Sacred Scripture.

What I am thinking is that no one is answering the question because:
a. Roman Catholics reading this had no idea they had books missing
b. They don’t care about Sacred Scripture enough to care
or
c. They just don’t know and that’s why there are so many posts asking me questions because they can’t answer this one.

That’s the only thing I can come up with as to why no one is answering the question.

 

[PerryJ]

There is only a Greek Version of the Septuagint at the time of Christ and if the Catholics have since changed the Septuagint into Latin around the 700’s when they began using Latin in the Liturgy, I couldn’t tell you. I can tell you that the Orthodox Church has always maintained it in Greek and in each place the Orthodox open up missions, they translate the Septuagint into the language of the people. It was translated into the Slavic by Sts. Cyril and Methodius once they created the Slavic written language. It has recently been published in English as well.

As you well know, Jesus did not quote the entire Septuagint in the New Testament books of the Bible. But everywhere in the Gospels that Jesus quoted from, what we now call the Old Testament, He was quoting from the Septuagint. He also amazed the people at the Temple when he was 12 when he was teaching them from the Septuagint.

It appears that no one can truly state when 3rd Maccabees was written. This includes the Orthodox Church. The best estimate places it between 100 BC and 70 AD. The literary style supports 100BC; however, there is evidence that it was not created until the common error and many scholars support this conclusion. As the Septugiant was created around 300 BC this would conclude that this book was never part of the original Septuagint. Scholarship research would appear to show that the Orthodox thought concerning this book is incorrect.

You have not been able to show proof to your claim that the items you mentioned where part of the original Septugiant other than your Church says so. When we speak of the DCs we have historical facts to support the conclusion.

If you can give me any support for your thoughts I am interested. I can not find anything that supports your claim.

 

[Sir_Knight]

There is only a Greek Version of the Septuagint at the time of Christ and if the Catholics have since changed the Septuagint into Latin around the 700’s when they began using Latin in the Liturgy, I couldn’t tell you. I can tell you that the Orthodox Church has always maintained it in Greek and in each place the Orthodox open up missions, they translate the Septuagint into the language of the people. It was translated into the Slavic by Sts. Cyril and Methodius once they created the Slavic written language. It has recently been published in English as well.

As you well know, Jesus did not quote the entire Septuagint in the New Testament books of the Bible. But everywhere in the Gospels that Jesus quoted from, what we now call the Old Testament, He was quoting from the Septuagint. He also amazed the people at the Temple when he was 12 when he was teaching them from the Septuagint.

Then it is entirely possible that Christ never quoted from the portions that were left out.

 

[dessert]

Psalms

The printed Hebrew Bible lists 150 psalms. Fewer are given by some Massoretic manuscripts

The older Septuagint manuscripts (Codd. Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Alexandrinus) give 151, but expressly state that the last psalm is not canonical: “This psalm was written by David with his own hand and is outside the number”, exothen tou arithmou.

And Psalm 23, “the Lord is my Shepherd” is actually Psalm 22, I think.

 

[JimG]

The Jews, after Christ, in about 70 AD came together after the Temple was destroyed and Christians were overrunning their synogoges and decided to change their Canon of Scripture & to translate it back into Hebrew. The changes they made can be found in a Protestant Old Testament as Martin Luther 1500’s later went to a local synogoge and copied what the Jews were using for his own Old Testament.

In about 3rd Century BC is when 70 Translators, each in separate cells, by the power of the Holy Spirit translated each word and phrase exactly as the other 69 translators had, the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek. Anyone who speaks more than 1 language can tell you this was a miracle as there are so many ways to say the same thing and translations always very (even if just slightly). But this was a miracle of God - His word. They called this the Septuagint. Based on the Greek word for 70, in honor of the 70 translators.

You say that the Jews changed their canon in 70 AD. And you seem to imply that the 3rd c.BC septuatgint was the original canon. But what I am getting it is: was it officially proclaimed by the Jews to be the only canonical list of the OT books?

In any case, did the Church have a right and duty to determine which books belonged in the canon? Was there a reason for them not to examine the books independently?