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

[MarcoPolo]

I did include the link to the Roman Catholic Church’s Vatican Website: www.vatican.va

Thank you, but the source I meant to ask for is where you assert that the Septuagint contained the books as you have claimed here.

So far, unless I have missed it, your answer is “The Hebrews in the 3rd century BC” said so. Perhaps a better resource that than sentence? Surely you were able to come to this conclusion from somewhere?

 

[savedsinner]

Why did the Roman Catholic Church remove books from the Septuagint?

Because it had the authority from Christ to do so.

It was led infallibly under the inspiration Holy Spirit, to the recognize that those other books were not inspired of God.

Again, I have shown that these books were not accepted by every early church, as you so claim incorrectly.

The church recognized the inspired canon and therefore declared that these were the only books which every church would be using in their Mass. This was done so the church would be one, not 2 not 3 not 10 not 30,000, but one.

I am sorry that you belong to a church that doesn’t recognize this authority given to the church by Christ himself.

If you have an issue with that then take it up with Jesus.

 

[PerryJ]

For 1st Esdra I can also only find sources that state it was written in the 1st or 2nd century BC at the earliest and may have been written during the common era. This would lead me to believe it was not part of the original Septugaint and may not have existed during Christ’s lifetime. This is basically the same scenario for 3rd Maccabees.

Unless you can find something to support your statement it would appear that the RCC was correct.

 

[chrisb]

Grace and Peace,

Isn’t the current Catholic Bible based on the Latin Translations of St. Jerome? Isn’t St. Jerome’s scholarly efforts the reason the current Catholic Bible is in the format and structure that we find it now as opposed to a more direct translation of the Septuagint?

 

[Chellow]

This is a great post StMarina303ad, the same question I had but never posted. But let me turn this around can you quote what council or Synod in the undivided Church that it gives the Canon of the Old Testament.

 

[RedSoxFan]

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.

St. Marina,

People have answered you. You just don’t like the answers. There was no unified canon for the Jews until the council of Jamnia in 70 AD. There were plenty of scriptures around (not bible as that didn’t exist yet), but not all were considered to be authentic or worthy to be put into the bible. That doesn’t mean they were taken out. It means there were not recognized as being legitimate. Some might have not been available to the Church fathers that decided on the cannon in the 4th century. Still others may be added as it is considered to be valid in the progression of time. All the canon means is that the books currently in it are considered inspired. That’s it. It’s by no means the end all of the cannon.

"b. They don’t care about Sacred Scripture enough to care "

You can’t be serious. OK, so where is your anger coming from? I would say the conversation made you frustrated but by your posts you were already frustrated. I have no problem with the Orthodox, why do you have problems with Catholics?

“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.”

Why should we add to our cannon? I see nothing that could add anything of value to our cannon. Fantastical apocryphal stories can be entertaining but not worthy of being listed in the cannon.

I pray that your anger will be vanquished.

Pax en Christi~RSF

 

[MarcoPolo]

Again, I have shown that these books were not accepted by every early church, as you so claim incorrectly.

You’ve done a good job in this thread.

 

[tm30]

The problem with what St.Marina is posing, is that he/she is speaking from a tradition that has no consistent canonical definitions whatsoever. So, St.Marina first needs to explain the differences in the accepted canons among the Greek, Serb, Russian, Coptic, Ethiopian Orthodox Churches, etc. before pointing a finger at Rome. The short answer here is that the Orthodox Church hasn’t dared to claim the guidance of the Holy Spirit, otherwise, the variations of canon under her own roof are utterly indefensible.

If only the Russian and Ethiopian Orthodox Churches believe that 2 Esdras is canonical, why don’t the rest, St.Marina?

In the end, St.Marina’s challenge is meaningless because there is nothing in Scripture that identifies or guarantees that ALL of the LXX texts are inspired. Only the guidance of the Holy Spirit can define the canon He inspired, and, to date, only the Roman Catholic Church has claimed infallibility and actually defined what that canon is.

 

[tm30]

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.

But different Orthodox Churches have different canons. How can that be, if, as you claim, the Orthodox Church can infallibly define the canon (which, by the way, it has never done)? Wouldn’t the Coptics, and the Ethiopians, and the Greeks, and the Russians, and the Serbs all have the same canon? Heck, 3 and 4 Maccabbees are not even considered canonical by the Coptics who translated them(!) How come the Ethiopian Orthodox are the only ones who believe 4 Baruch and Enoch and Jubilees are inspired?

 

[Catholic_Dude]

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.

I would agree with this. Every now and then a gunslinger like this comes into town expecting to pull a job on us, and time and again they are sent off the way they came not realizing what type of town he’s dealing with.

This is a great post StMarina303ad, the same question I had but never posted. But let me turn this around can you quote what council or Synod in the undivided Church that it gives the Canon of the Old Testament.

Bingo. Notice how St M refuses to address the fact big name EASTERN Early Church Fathers doubted the Deutero-Canonical books. And worse yet is the fact no Councils/Synods (at least not that I’m aware of) advocated a wholesale use of the LXX; what is even worse is that the Orthodox Council of Jerusalem in 1672 actually agreed with the Catholic canon.

 

[juliamajor]

all are missing the point . Use and canonization are different just like the LXX was not canonized until way after Jesus Death and Resurrection.Canonization is a creation to stop the influx of not so orthodox books(like the Gnostics).Get a grip

 

[bly]

I agree with post # LXX II.

 

[StMarina303ad]

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.

 

[estesbob]

Still no answer at Catholic Answers.

R.

You have been given dozens of answers. you just didnt like them.

 

[RedSoxFan]

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.

“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,”

No one is doing that. All that is inspired by the Holy Spirit has been protected by the Church.

And you didn’t answer my question. Why were you angry before this conversation started?

 

[MrS]

“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,”

No one is doing that. All that is inspired by the Holy Spirit has been protected by the Church.

And you didn’t answer my question. Why were you angry before this conversation started?

Perhaps there is a desire to become Catholic… and the shock of it all has left St M in an understandably confused/angry frame of mind.

Prayers that St M recognize the Catholic Church as the only Church founded by Christ and with the Chair of Peter at the earthly authoritative head.

 

[GeorgiaPeach]

Unless the books the OP claims were “removed” contain things contrary to Catholic teaching I don’t understand the point of this thread.

 

[MagicKirk]

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.

St.Marina, I think that you really asked a great question. Unfortunately, I am not a scholar of Biblical history and can’t answer you off the top of my head. I’m going to do a little research on this and see what I can find.

I think that the way you framed your question (which is entirely valid) turned several people off because you framed it as an accusation and not a question.

There have been a handful of responses that did answer your question straight-away. (That the books in question were written at later dates.) However, It would have been good to see some sources.

The reason I am writing this is because St. Marina correctly states that when explaining to Protestants that the D/C books belong in the Bible, we give as one of our reasons that the DC was included in the Septuagint. I have never seen a Protestant come back with the question that St. Marina just posed, but sooner or later it will come and we need to be prepared with an answer.

The Internet chart that showed what the ECF thought about some of the books would have been great for this purpose, however, the chart only referenced the DC and not the excluded books referenced by St. Marina.

This will really take several days of research.

 

[Canto]

Aside from “because the Orthodox church says so” how do we know how many books were in the original LXX. Various mansucripts have different listing of books.

c.f. geocities.com/Heartland/Pines/7224/Rick/Septuagint/sp_books.html

No one has the complete original orignal. Some have suggested that texts were later added to the LXX.

The scriptures were orignally scrolls and not a chunky book like to today. There were various OT and NT scriptures such as the book of Enoch (quoted in the NT), Obadiah (Not quoted in the NT), the Gospel of Thomas etc.

The Catholic canon for the OT (and NT) was decreed by the Pope at the council or Rome in 382 AD and was reaffirmed at countless other councils such as Hippo (393), Carthage (397 and 419), Nicaea II (787), Florence (1441), Trent (1545-1563), Vatican I (1869-1870), Vatican II (1962-1965) for example.

The Catholic Church’s canon does not rest on the LXX and She has never infallibly decreed how many books are in the LXX and thus has neither added nor deleted any book(s) from the LXX.

In what year did the Orthodox Church officially decree that the number of books for the OT? Do all Orthodox Christians agree?

The vulgate translated the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek mansuscripts.

Lastly, someone mentioned something about book names…
Biblia Sacra (vulgate) aka in modern english translations
1 and 2 Kings aka 1 and 2 Samuel
2 and 3 Kings aka 1 and 2 Kings
Paralipomenon aka Chronicles
1 Esdras aka Ezra (2 Esdras Ch 1-10 LXX)
2 Esdras aka Nehemiah (2 Esdras Ch 11-23 LXX)
Ecclesiasticus aka Sirach

 

[MagicKirk]

The previous poster provided some great information.

fyi

This is what Wikipedia says about Psalm 151

Psalm 151 is the name given to a short psalm which is found in most copies of the Septuagint[1] but not in the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible. The title given to this psalm in the Septuagint indicates that it is supernumerary, and no number is affixed to it: “This Psalm is ascribed to David and is outside the number. When he slew Goliath in single combat.”[2]

The Eastern Orthodox Church accepts Psalm 151 as canonical.[3] Roman Catholics, Protestants, and most Jews consider it apocryphal. However, it is found in an appendix in some Catholic Bibles, such as certain editions of the Latin Vulgate, as well as in some ecumenical translations, such as the New Revised Standard Version.

Composition
For many years scholars believed that Psalm 151 might have been an original Greek-language composition by the compilers of the Septuagint. However, evidence of the Hebrew origin of Psalm 151 has been found at Qumran. Scroll 11QPs(a), dating from the first century AD, contains two short Hebrew psalms which scholars now agree served as the basis for Psalm 151.[4] [5] One of these Hebrew psalms, known as “Psalm 151a”, is reflected in verses 1–5 of the Greek Psalm 151, while verses 6 onward are derived from the other Hebrew psalm, known as “Psalm 151b”. The composer has brought the two Hebrew psalms together in a manner that significantly changes their meaning and structure, but the influence of the Hebrew originals is still readily apparent.

Synopsis
The title of the psalm claims that it was written by King David after his battle with Goliath. The text expresses how David was the least of his brothers, and yet God chose him to be anointed king. It goes on to commemorate how David killed Goliath with the Philistine’s own sword.