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

[Isa_Almisry]

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.

Ah, here you are forging a two edge sword, because the Protestants make the same argument on the whole DC. I don’t find the difference between the canon of the LXX and Trent a big problem (as opposed to the text), but the principles behind the difference is a problem. In many ways, the Protestants are only taking the ideas of St. Jerome to their logical conclusion.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

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.

ah, yes Rome the solution of all problems. Only problem, if you poke around, its not so definitive as it might seem. The Vulgate is the official version of the OT according to Trent, but the Psalms and the texts in the Latin mass are from the Vetus Latina. Rome rejected Hebrews, whereas the other Churches accepted it, etc. And we’ll leave out the forged decretals.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

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?

What makes you think the Copts translated 3 and 4 Maccabbees? In particular as it is evident that the Greek is the original, and hence didn’t need to be translated?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

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.

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.

As the Council of Jerusalem was combating the beliefs of your Calvinists, this shouldn’t be such a big surprise.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

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

Because, as explained earlier, the Council of Trent is where the canon of Scripture was decreed definitively, that is immutably.

Nonetheless, the Vatican also references other councils and decrees. For instance, the footnote to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 120 on the canon of Scripture references the 5th century Decree of Gelasius (DS 179). Part of the Gelasian decree derives from*** the earlier Decree of Damasus (AD 382).*** The CCC also references ***the Council of Florence (DS 1334-1336).

---

 

[mercygate]

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!

Thanks, Kurt. I needed that! Good to see you again.

 

[Esdras]

From what I have studied, the Septuagint OT was a translation of Hebrew scriptures that were accepted by Jews as being divinely inspired. When the second temple was destroyed in 70 A.D., many of the orginal Hebrew copies were destroyed or had been hidden and forgotten. When the Hebrew bible was being reestablished, any book that only existed in any language other than Hebrew was rejected out of hand.

The official Orthodox OT is the Septuagint. Most of the Orthodox churches agree on the NT as used by the Catholics and Protestants.

 

[peary]

Exactly what books were removed by the Catholic Church from the Septuagint?

 

[HolyBrotherhood]

First of all when they refer to the Septuagint they only refered to the protocanon not the deutorocanon. Second the Church isnt hidding the lack of books, if you read any commentaries on Traditional bibles it will explain why their not there. Many of the books you talk about are part of the apendix of the Latin Vulgate. Some books where not encluded like 3rd and 4rd maccabes because they are not of the same auther as 1st and 2nd Macc. The Prayer of Manase was not encluded because it was not written by Manase same goes for Psalm 151 it wasnt written by David. Esdra 3 and 4 arent encluded because it has no conection with 1 and 2 Esdra.

 

[JackQ]

I’m sorry but I really do want to get drawn in another one of these Orthodox versus Catholic debates. To be honest I do not have any idea why there is so much animosity towards Catholics from the Orthodox. Now perhaps their is animosity towards Orthodox from some Catholics but quite frankly I don’t know about the Orthodox to have an opinion.

Most of that animosity comes from former evangelicals who became Orthodox, I think.

 

[Formosus]

The Latin canon has never been identical to the Greek canon of the Bible. I do not know why these books were removed from their canon, but frankly it is not that great of a matter. The various Eastern Catholic Churches use the wider Septuagint canon (or in the case of the Ethiopians, the much larger Ethiopian canons) and a clear reading of Trent shows that it is not against Latin teaching to accept these books as canonical.

 

[rben20]

The books were not included but it in no way resembles what protestants did particularly Martin Luther who included the books but were in the back or middle of OT and NT…treated as “good study” rather than Scripture. So to draw comparisons with the Catholic Church and the protestants sects is erroneous. There is no questionable teachings in the few books not included as there are with the Protestants, specifically praying for the dead found in the book of Maccabees (how convient it was removed). Can you find any real problem with the books not included in the Catholic bible? If there is you should show me because I can assure you there isn’t any. That’s why this debate is so rare as orthodox don’t particularly worry amount this. Not all orthodox even have the same about of books. Explain the Ethiopian church’s canon…

If it’s simply based on the principal of not including all OT books well what can we say? We base it on the authority of the Church. In 328 ad under the Bishop of Rome, the Pope, we had our canon decided. That’s the earliest canon by the way of the Bible as we know it. In the end all we can really say is…well that’s what the Church selected and we don’t question it. Then again if you are going to accuse Roman Catholics you should first go after your Orthodox churches since they don’t all have the same books either. Don’t just pick on Catholics.

 

[Big_Dummy]

From my researches, first around 200 BC the Torah as translated in to the LXX, as time went on other books from the prophets and writtings were added. All existing LXX manuscripts today are at least 300+ years after Christ, so those books were simply added or copied with LXX books after the fact. We can not prove exactly what books where or where not in the LXX in Jesus’ day. So, claiming someone added or took away books is an argument from silence.

 

[Formosus]

** Not all orthodox even have the same about of books. Explain the Ethiopian church’s canon… **

If it’s simply based on the principal of not including all OT books well what can we say? We base it on the authority of the Church. In 328 ad under the Bishop of Rome, the Pope, we had our canon decided. That’s the earliest canon by the way of the Bible as we know it. In the end all we can really say is…well that’s what the Church selected and we don’t question it. Then again if you are going to accuse Roman Catholics you should first go after your Orthodox churches since they don’t all have the same books either. Don’t just pick on Catholics.

There are two different communions of Churches that use the name “Orthodox”. The Ethiopian Orthodox are part of the non-chalcedonian (or oriental orthodox) communion. As opposed to the Eastern Orthodox communion. So its not a fair criticism to use the Ethiopian canon as an example… Now with that said, the Russian slavic canon does usually have an extra book of Esdras (to my knowledge) that the Greek canon lacks. So there may be room to use that as an example…

As to your second point, there were earlier canons of Scripture cited by pre-nicene Fathers.

I think we can all agree that the OP is a bit out of line here. The differences in Old Testament canons between Apostolic Churches are not such a great matter as to be an issue of contention between us, especially since Eastern Catholic Churches all use their wider Orthodox biblical canon counterparts.

 

[rben20]

I stand corrected. Thank you. Good to know there are still different canons among the Orthodox but the Ethiopian Orthodox are not to be considered

 

[speakttruth]

The Catholic Church created the Bible which included all of the old testament
The Protestants are using the Catholic Bible.

The didn’t remove anything. The bible you have to day was and is the Catholic bible,
Luther and Protestants removed portions , which he didn’t agree with after he left the church, he was a Catholic monk. Who was he a single person, thought he should remove portions of the bible?
You can not have faith without works which Paul said that was including in the new testament. You can not have works without faith. They are inseparable. But their is only one line that Luther believed is was only about faith and he would not believe the same person, St Paul also included in his other gospels as faith and works that have to be done in order to follow God. He became the authority, which he complained about the Pope. The church was doing bad at the time, but you don’t throw the baby out with the bath water. You fix the church, yout remove the bad behavior of rogue priests. If you have a family and one person does bad, does that mean your not a family anymore? No, you are still a family and Luther broke up the family to feed his own ego and if you look at his past, he had a problem with authority figures, because he was abused by his father.
Back in the 300’s the Catholic church put together what they believed was inspired by the word of God because they had the holy spirit to direct them. Then in the 1500,s Luther himself decided to change what the Catholic church taught for hundreds of years.
Too bad Protestants don’t realize that they are not receiving the fullness of the faith. They are running on three tires, instead of four. Luther also believed in the blessed Mother and that she was and is virgin. But they don’t honor her and follow Luther. But we can honor a President of the US, but not our blessed mother? But because we have over 33,000 different churchs you have everyone doing their own thing. Jesus told Peter to take care of his church, not churchs.
How do all these churchs know who is right? That is why we have the only church Jesus formed and it has never been wrong about the faith and morals and the doctrines.
I was ignorant for years and now I know the truth.
God help us all!

ha your funny …i had to respond so you won’t soak in your own pride…O NO! now i’m soaking in my own ignorance

well i don’t what your talking about…there is no Psalm 151
and the other that you said…

I guess what you MISUNDERSTAND is that the bishops and all the other leaders of the church at that time decided what was truly inspired by God…which kinda puts the Magisteriam (authority of the church) over sola scriptura because the former made the latter