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

[Jolly_Joe]

Jedin is certainly not in conflict with the Faith. Maybe you are not aware of how the Council of Trent was run.

It had a discussion of what the questions were, and then after a period of time, it would answer them.

All most people take is the answers without understanding the questions and debate.

So what they do it add their interpretation to the answers.

It happens to other Councils as well, but we unfortunately do not have the documentation of what was said.

So we have to observe sometimes what happened. So you get people who conclude for instance the canon was set and by that they mean everything was authoritative, but people much closer to that time did not behave that way and they weren’t disciplined so it doesn’t appear that is what it meant to them. Instead in the case of canon of scripture, it appears what was decided was which books to include and use.

But even that wasn’t completely rigid.

Anyway, back to Trent. The people attending discussed the authority of the books and some wanted to make a decision concerning the authority of the books, but it was decided to let the dispute between Augusting and Jerome stand. They specifically decided not to chose between them, yet when people read the canon concering scripture, they think the Council did what it specifically decided not to.

It’s unfortunate that those who knew this chose to hide it.

Even in the 1800’s when the fellow got permission finally to read and write about them, as he started to do it, he was criticized deeply and limited. What was his name? You say you read a lot maybe you remember?

You probably have access to more sources than I’ve seen. You wouldn’t have to dig through all of Trent, it would be in the earlier parts as they decided which questions to decide. And it should be noted that they were questions which in and of itself refutes the history that has been created for the canon of scripture. But it really shouldn’t take too much to find the reference.

JJ

 

[Jolly_Joe]

Okay, I got a bit lucky. Anyway on the History of the Council of Trent, should find things in pages 55-57 that are pertinent.

For the Papal Legat at the Council of Trent, the area would be pages 270 to 282.

That should give you the meat.

Not going to be a lot of bombshell quotes that one can just paste around the internet and win arguements. Like this one from the Papal Legate book.

Seripando emphasized that in spite of the Florentine canon the question of a twofold canon was still open and was treated as such by learned men in the Church.

Anyway, you’ll want to read the broader discussion those references should get you to them.

JJ

 

[Jolly_Joe]

While we are discussing things, maybe you could answer a question for me.

Is there a good collection (electronic) of Catholic Resources of modern works?

I can’t even afford to own say all Jedin’s works, which he does seem to me to be certainly a good historian and well worth reading. But I can’t afford them, and there is no library anywhere near me that has them. I can interlibrary them, but that isn’t very satisfying because it’s not like a guy can memorize them, and often it’s just one question at a time.

Is there an electronic edition of the works of Jedin?

JJ

 

[PerryJ]

While we are discussing things, maybe you could answer a question for me.

Is there a good collection (electronic) of Catholic Resources of modern works?

I can’t even afford to own say all Jedin’s works, which he does seem to me to be certainly a good historian and well worth reading. But I can’t afford them, and there is no library anywhere near me that has them. I can interlibrary them, but that isn’t very satisfying because it’s not like a guy can memorize them, and often it’s just one question at a time.

Is there an electronic edition of the works of Jedin?

JJ

I do not know of any of Jedins’ work on-line. Wish I could tell you differently.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Jerome was commenting in that passage how the church used the version of Daniel from a heretic. Not the Septuagint, nor the Massoretic version.

The version was from the Hebrew named Theodotian, whose 2nd cent. Greek translation was a larger version than some, but not all other Hebrew versions of his day. The earliest extant Masoretic text is 10th cent., so it is no surprise why Jerome would not have referenced it.

Nevertheless, the Qumran finding include fragments from the larger version of Daniel in a non-Greek (i.e., Hebrew & Aramaic language), which even pre-date the second cent. version by the Hebrew, Theodotian. Consequently, extant historical evidence shows that there were indeed different versions of the Book of Daniel.

Which one did the Church of Christ use? According to Origen, “every Church of Christ” during his day used the LARGER version of the Book of Daniel. Every one of them. In fact, if you look at all the Christian manuscripts of Sacred Scripture in other that fragmentary size, they TOO include the larger version of Daniel.

So, the question I have for those you reject the larger version of Daniel, by what authority does one reject what “every Church of Christ” according to Origen unanimously included in their Holy Scriptures? Origen accepted the larger version. Jerome accepted the larger version. All Christian manuscripts prior to the advent of Protestantism included the larger Daniel. The evidence seem quite clear to those willing to “test everything; hold fast what is good.” (1 Thess 5:21)

See more here: How Big is Your Book of Daniel?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

St. Augustine of Hippo led the Council of Hippo, which influenced the Council of Carthage, both of which canonized the Catholic version of Scripture in the 4th century.

Protestant historian, Philip Schaff admitted:

                         "The council of **Hippo in 393**, and the third (according to another reckoning the sixth) council of **Carthage in 397**, **under the influence of Augustine**, who attended both, ***fixed the catholic canon of the Holy Scriptures***, including the Apocrypha of the Old Testament.... The New Testament canon is the same as ours. This decision of the transmarine church however, was subject to ratification; and the concurrence of the Roman see it received when **Innocent I and Gelasius I a.d. 414**) repeated the same index of biblical books. **This canon remained undisturbed till the sixteenth century, and was sanctioned by the council of Trent at its fourth session.**" (Schaff, Philip, *History of the Christian Church*, Vol. III, Ch 9)

So, St. Augustine agreed with the canon used by Catholics today, to include the larger canon of Daniel, the two books of Ezra which are called Ezra and Nehemiah today.

Furthermore, Schaff was correct to state this was “fixed” insofar as this was an authoritative canon, but it was not yet universally authoritative canon. Nor was it an immutable canon. It wasn’t until the Ecumenical Council of Florence that the list of Sacred books decreed was universally binding. Yet, at Florence, it was still not an immutable list. Canon law can be changed, even if universal. Florence did not use the usual language of an irrevocable decree. However, at Trent, the canon of Scripture affirmed the universal decree from Florence in a manner that, according to Catholic dogmatic theology, makes it both universally binding and immutable (i.e., irrevocable dogma). In other words, at Trent, the canon was closed. This seems to be the opinion of all Catholic schools of theology after Trent. Nonetheless, some individual Catholic scholars have recently contended otherwise. Yet, I don’t believe their reasoning is well supported by principles common to Catholic dogmatic theology.

Trent closed the canon of Scripture that was authoritative or “fixed” in the words of Schaff, since the 4th century.

Because it was not DOGMA until Trent, a minority of Catholic theologicans, including some saints such as St. John Damascene, and others Catholics prior to Trent, such as Cardinal Cajetan, dispute the inspired nature of some **OT and NT passages according to the list of Sacred texts decreed at Florence.

It is not that Florence was not binding upon Cardinal Cajetan, et. al. However, it was not yet dogma. While it was binding and authoritative canon law for all Catholics, such universal law was not YET considered immutable, and Catholics could give their contrary opinion as to which books were inspired without charge of heresy. After Trent, Catholic theologians were no longer free to believe contrary to the sacred dogmatic decree regarding the canon of Sacred Scripture.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

As for the rejection of other books considered apocrypha by Catholics and canonical (though in a non-uniform way) by Eastern Orthodox, St. Augustine explained the methodology for canonizing the Bible as he did in the 4th cent.

St. Augustine stated:

The most skillful interpreter of the sacred writings, then, will be he who in the first place has read them all and retained them in his knowledge, if not yet with full understanding, still with such knowledge as reading gives,—those of them, at least, that are called canonical. For he will read the others with greater safety when built up in the belief of the truth, so that they will not take first possession of a weak mind, nor, cheating it with dangerous falsehoods and delusions, fill it with prejudices averse to a sound understanding. Now, in regard to the canonical Scriptures, he must follow the judgment of the greater number of catholic churches; and among these, of course, a high place must be given to such as have been thought worthy to be the seat of an apostle and to receive epistles. [St. Augustine, *On Christian Doctrine,

Bk II, Ch. 8, ca. AD 397]
The “greater number” of Catholic Churches have held that the 73 books, the same held today by the Catholic Church, are canonical. Likewise, the highest place is given to the Church of Rome, the seat of Peter, who likewise decreed these 73 books, never canonizing 3 & 4 Maccabees, the Prayer of Manasseh, 3 & 4 Esdras, etc. Since they were never canonized, they were never un-canonized.

St. Augustine continued…

Accordingly, among the canonical Scriptures he will judge according to the following standard: to prefer those that are received by all the catholic churches to those which some do not receive. Among those, again, which are not received by all, he will prefer such as have the sanction of the greater number and those of greater authority, to such as are held by the smaller number and those of less authority. If, however, he shall find that some books are held by the greater number of churches, and others by the churches of greater authority (though this is not a very likely thing to happen), I think that in such a case the authority on the two sides is to be looked upon as equal. [ibid.]

 

[mercygate]

As for the rejection of other books considered apocrypha by Catholics and canonical (though in a non-uniform way) by Eastern Orthodox, St. Augustine explained the methodology for canonizing the Bible as he did in the 4th cent.

St. Augustine stated:
The “greater number” of Catholic Churches have held that the 73 books, the same held today by the Catholic Church, are canonical. Likewise, the highest place is given to the Church of Rome, the seat of Peter, who likewise decreed these 73 books, never canonizing 3 & 4 Maccabees, the Prayer of Manasseh, 3 & 4 Esdras, etc. Since they were never canonized, they were never un-canonized.

St. Augustine continued…

Ah. The gentle dew of knowledge combined with, sweet reason, understanding and holy counsel. itsjustdave1988 does it again.

 

[Kurt_G]

For the first time in maybe a year, I found my lost “Forums” icon on my desktop. Eager to see who is talking pro-life politics, etc. (a subject dear to my heart) I decide to tune in…

But Wait! What’s this thread delving into the OT discrepencies between Catholics and Orthodox? (That was another favorite subject first encountered, for me, by an “over-intelligent” RCIA candidate in our class, several seasons ago.)

And then I saw them… two names of whom I had grown so fond of, during my very short stint on the Forum a few seasons back-
mercygate, and itsjustdave!

May God continue to bless both of you, and boy, am I lucky I’m on dave’s side on this one… so, so smooth!

 

[juliamajor]

This is just silly this whole argument-book weren’t taken out because was never accepted. Part of being accepted in the Canon is liturgical use.Those books were not accepted because Western Church use of them was minimal.There was no widespread usage of them in the early Church at least in the West.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

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.

Uh, the same Damasus who commissioned St. Jerome and the Vulgate?

Btw, the NT canon as we have it is first issued by Pope Athanasius of Alexandria in 367, in his paschal message.

And as to canon, the Vatican always references Trent. Why?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

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

No, the criticism came from those who respected the Biblical admonition not to move the landmark which Our Fathers had set up. St. Augustine reminded St. Jerome that we walk in the way of the Apostles, and not the Pharisees, Sadducees and Scribes.

Btw, not all scribes copied Jerome’s prefaces. And in parts the Latin church adamately refused to accept Jerome’s Vulgate and his switch to a Jewish text, e.g. the Psalter copied was the Vetus Latina, NOT the Vulgate, and similarly the parts in the Liturgy.

One thing I do find odd, btw, is that the Vatican didn’t get around to canonizing Jerome until AFTER Trent.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

St Jerome said in 402, after the Pope had decreed the canon at the council of Rome in 382…

“What sin have I committed if I followed the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susanna, the Son of the Three Children, and the story of Bel and the Dragon, which are not found in the Hebrew volume, proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. For I wasn’t relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they are wont to make against us” (Against Rufinus 11:33 [A.D. 402]).

You are begging the question, unless Jerome specifically referes to a Council of Rome. We know that that Churches and the Fathers had made many judgments on the canon, without any reference to a supposed Council of Rome in 382.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

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.

I use this Oxford Study too. But now also “The Orthodox Study Bible: Ancient Christiantiy Speaks to Today’s World” which translates the LXX (including the Book Order, which differs from the Vulgate and Masoretic).

 

[Isa_Almisry]

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??



.

We haven’t. For one thing, his successor Patriarch Ignatius IV sits on it in the original Petrine See, Antioch.

(btw, the “ff” of "Matthew 16:18ff include verse 23?).

 

[Isa_Almisry]

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.

The ECFs (and the Bible) are very clear that SS. Peter and Paul founded the See of Antioch, the Apostolic See where the believers were first called Christians.

St. Andrew did not found the See of Constantinople, which was not founded until 330. The ECF are very clear that St. Andrew founded the See of Byzantium, the city that preceded New Rome on the same spot, along with evangelizing what would be Romania, Ukraine and Russia. Btw, that includes ECF who wrote before 330, like Origen.

Have you told your Benedict XVI that no ECF support the foundation of Constantinople’s see? He went there on St. Andrew’s day to celebrate it.

For good measure, the ECF are very clear that St. Mark founded Alexandria as a Petrine See, and her primate first was given the title of Pope, where Pope Theodore II sits on the Apostle and Evangelist’s throne there. And in Jerusalem, Patriarch Theofilos III sits on the throne of David (as St. Epiphanios calls it: Eusebeus only uses throne in reference to this see, not to Rome), that of St. James the Brother of God, whom St. Peter we are told dared not take the glory, as St. James was as appointed by the Lord to preside over Jerusalem. I could go on to other Apostolic sees of the Orthodox, but time is short.

Back on topic.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

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.

No, its only a few years after Trent. We’ve already brought up the problems with taking the Council of Rome of 382 as history.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

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

you are twisting here the words of St. Peter’s successor St. Ignatius, ordained by St. Peter himself in his original see of Antioch, who wrote, to a Church which would be within the Ecumenical Patriarchate, saying “wherever the bishop is, there is the Catholic Church” the earliest reference to that term. No reference to “the bishop appointed by Rome,” as no such thing occured. Nor does his letter to Rome mention the bishop there, or the bishop at all.

… it is the OFFICE of the pope that is important, because it is the OFFICE that must be filled

then funny that St. Ignatius doesn’t mention that OFFICE when he writes to Rome

… and it currently resides in Rome.

You mean the Vatican.

Your history is not historical, sorry to say.

History shall judge.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

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.

I might mention that St. John Chrysostom was not in communion with Rome when he became bishop of Constantinople, nor was St. Gregory Nazianzus, nor St. Basil when he was ordained. Nor were the Fathers of the Second Ecumenical Council, who wrote the Universal Creed.

I might add in passing that besides Vatican claims to the power to determine the canon and a primacy of the Vulgate, or Jerome’s ideas on the OT, the subject of the OP is not a serious one, in that we have much more serious issues. Psalm 151, Prayer of Manesseh etc. do not embody any great differences between us and the Vatican.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

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.

Josephus uses 1st Esdra as the basis on his history, and the ECF quote it extensively, so it seems they didn’t agree. As 3rd Maccabees recounts events after the translation of the LXX, of course it was not in the original core. But it made it into the Syraic Peshitta, and the Armenian translation.