Z
Zenkai
Guest
Why don’t Catholics use all the books that are in the Septuagint? Why do Catholics reject half of the “additional” books? It seems that Orthodox uses all of them, Catholics use half, and Proestants use none.
- Status
Z
Zenkai
Guest
S
Scoobyshme
Guest
It seems that the Septuagent was added to along the way and there grew to be more than one version. The version used by the Church is considered the purest version. See the article which discusses the Septuagent here:
newadvent.org/cathen/13722a.htm
newadvent.org/cathen/13722a.htm
C
COPLAND_3
Guest
The authority to determine what books are canonical or not rests on the Holy Spirit’s work through the Church, not upon a version of the Old Testament.
N
nickybr38
Guest
The Orthodox were once Catholics and at one point they used the same version of the Septuagint that the Catholic church uses. The real question is… why did they stop using the version they started out with?
C
COPLAND_3
Guest
I’ve done some study and work on the Septuagint, and I have a tremendous amount of reverence for it. I think what is more valuable than what books eventually found themselves in the LXX manuscripts, is the readings that are found in the LXX, which most of the time preserve the most ancient and authentic readings compared to even the. Hebrew versions. Often the LXX clears up any alledged contradictions made by the anti-Bible folks. And the LXX is in better harmony with the New Testament since many of the NT quotes of the OT come from the LXX.
C
christosdavid
Guest
what about the extra chapters scattered around the LXX (eg Daniel)
D
Dave_Noonan
Guest
The Orthodox Churches have always had a different biblical canon than the Western Church-- and they don’t completely agree with each other, for that matter. So it wasn’t the case that they used the Western canon and then “switched” at some point.
N
nickybr38
Guest
Is that so? Wasn’t the Orthodox church at one point part of the Universal Christian Church (IE: The Catholic Church)? I mean, right back to the Apostles and then move out from there and when do you find Orthodox versus Western? So… from the point of the Apostles they used the Septuagint that Christ used, did they not?
I dunno. It’s not my strong point but I was under the impression that we were all one at some point and then started breaking off from there.
D
Dave_Noonan
Guest
Here’s a breakdown of the various biblical canons–you’ll have to scroll down to see the chart that compares the different Bibles:Is that so? Wasn’t the Orthodox church at one point part of the Universal Christian Church (IE: The Catholic Church)? I mean, right back to the Apostles and then move out from there and when do you find Orthodox versus Western? So… from the point of the Apostles they used the Septuagint that Christ used, did they not?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon
What you describe is sometimes how church history is portrayed by Catholic apologists, but it’s really a distortion. Fr. Benedict Groeschel helpfully refers to these various original churches as the “ancient churches” which I think is a useful, accurate, yet neutral term. Basically there are several churches that claim apostolic origins. Church histories in the Latinate church often ignore the fact that there were Christians outside the bounds of the Roman Empire (perhaps MORE than inside old Roman Empire by the 6th century) spreading as far away as India and China. Sometimes people present the church as singular, uniform and united entity until 1056 which isn’t really the case. There were/are several churches in the East besides what people commonly lump together as “Orthodox” (they often actually mean only Greek Orthodox) as if they were also only one church.
If you’re really interested in the topic I would suggest Philip Jenkins’s “The Lost History of Christianity.”
N
nickybr38
Guest
I’m not really all that interested in all honesty. I figure the Church that flourished and is one billion strong is probably the one endorsed by God. Those other obscure ones that nobody ever really hears about? Probably not the true churches…
Just my thoughts on the issue but thanks for sharing a different viewpoint then one I’m used to hearing.
L
_L
Guest
There isn’t even an established canon in orthodoxy, correct me if I am wrong, but Russian orthodox have a different number of books thant greek, and I am not sure about the other discrepancies. This isn’t problelmatic, because as I have heard it articulated to me by orthodox, unlike the common conception in protestantism and more western Christianity the Bible isn’t seen as what is central to the faith, so it isn’t paramount to have a cemented canon like it is in protestantism which focuses on the Bible alone.
but in regards to the CC, I believe we don’t accept Maccabees 3 and 4 because their authorship was put into quesiton, some say the Jewish historian Josephus wrote one or both, Church historian Eusebius says Josephus wrote Maccabees 4, and there was also a concern of Maccbees 4 being littered with stoic philosophy. And I think these are the same reasons the Russian Orthodox Church doesn’t have Maccabees 4 in their Bible like Greek Orthodox do.
but in regards to the CC, I believe we don’t accept Maccabees 3 and 4 because their authorship was put into quesiton, some say the Jewish historian Josephus wrote one or both, Church historian Eusebius says Josephus wrote Maccabees 4, and there was also a concern of Maccbees 4 being littered with stoic philosophy. And I think these are the same reasons the Russian Orthodox Church doesn’t have Maccabees 4 in their Bible like Greek Orthodox do.
- Status