Catholic and Protestant Bibles

Evangelization Station ^ | Victor R. Claveau, MJ

[GonzoII]

Catholic and Protestant Bibles

The Protestant Old Testament omits seven entire books and parts of two other books. To explain how this came about, it is necessary that we go back to the ancient Jewish Scriptures. The Hebrew Bible contained only the Old Testament and from its Old Testament it excluded seven entire books—namely, Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Baruch, I and II Maccabees—and parts of Esther(1) and Daniel(2). These books, which are missing in the Jewish Bible, came into the Catholic Church with the Septuagint, a pre-Christian Greek translation of the Old Testament. In the Septuagint they are intermingled and given equal rank with other books as in the Catholic Bible. Since the Hebrew collection of the sacred books was older than the Septuagint, the books of the Hebrew Bible are known as the “protocanonical” (of the first canon, collection, catalog). The additional books and sections found in the Septuagint and in Catholic Bibles are called “deuterocanonical” (of the second canon or collection).

Jewish hostility to the deutero-canonical books is probably attributable to the conservative spirit of the times. During the last centuries which preceded the coming of Christ, the Jews of Palestine were becoming extremely reactionary under the stress of unfavorable political conditions. Since the deuterocanonical books were of comparatively recent origin and since some of them were written in Greek—the language of paganism—they naturally fell under the displeasure of the Jews. The fact, too, that the early Christians used the Septuagint in their controversies with the Jews only served to confirm the latter in their opposition to this version of the Old Testament.

Jewish hostility to the deutero-canonical books is probably attributable to the conservative spirit of the times. During the last centuries which preceded the coming of Christ, the Jews of Palestine were becoming extremely reactionary under the stress of unfavorable political conditions. Since the deuterocanonical books were of comparatively recent origin and since some of them were written in Greek—the language of paganism—they naturally fell under the displeasure of the Jews. The fact, too, that the early Christians used the Septuagint in their controversies with the Jews only served to confirm the latter in their opposition to this version of the Old Testament.

The attitude of the Catholic Church toward the deuterocanonical books is determined by a constant and well-established tradition. How well attested this translation is, and how well founded it the position of the Catholic Church, is made readily apparent by the following important facts: In the first place, the Apostles and New Testament writers quoted principally from the Septuagint. On fact, of the three hundred and fifty Old Testament quotations found in the New Testament, about three hundred are taken from the Septuagint..Some of the New Testament writers made use of the deuterocanonicals books themselves, particularly the Book of Wisdom, which seems to have been St. Paul’s favorite volume. The Epistle of James, for example, shows familiarity with the book of Sirach. If the Apostles and New Testament writers used some of the deuterocanonical books, did they not thereby endorse the entire and longer Septuagint collection?

Secondly, the deuterocanonical books were accepted in the Church from the beginning. The Epistle of Pope Clement, written before the end of the first century, makes use of Sirach and Wisdom, gives an analysis of the Book of Judith, and quotes from the deuterocanonical parts of Esther. The same is true of other early Christian writers. The oldest extant Christian Bibles contain the deuterocanonical books intermingled with the protocanonical. The oldest Christian list of Biblical books contain the deuterocanonical books; in 382 Pope Damasus in a Roman Council promulgated a formal list of Old and New Testament books and the list contains the same books as we have in our Catholic Bibles. Finally, Christian art of the first four centuries, especially that found in the catacombs and cemeteries, furnish among others the following illustrations from the deuterocanonical books: Tobias with the fish, Susanna (Dan. 13), Daniel and the dragon (Dan. 14), the angel with the three children in the fiery furnace (Dan. 3:49), Habakkuk and Daniel in the lion’s den (Dan. 14:35).

Suffice to say, in conclusion, that since they follow the synagogue in their rejection of the deuterocanonical books, the Protestants should in all logic follow it in its rejection of the New Testament and of Christ Himself.

Apocryphal Books

The term “apocryphal” is derived from the Greek “apokryphos” and denotes something hidden or secret. The sacred books of the ancient pagans, which described the mysteries of religion, were called Apocrypha, because they were kept hidden in the temples, and shown only to the initiated. Again, magicians and wonder-workers forged books reputed to contain hidden heavenly secrets, and designated by the title apocrypha.

Later on, however, the term came to denote a well-defined class of work with Scriptural or quasi-Scriptural pretensions, but lacking genuineness and canonicity, and composed during the last two centuries before Christ or during the early centuries of the Christian era. These books claimed divine authority, and were occasionally accepted by some as inspired, but were excluded from the Bible of the universal Church. There number is exceedingly great. Most of them are either anonymous or pseudonymous. Some are written for edification; others for the sake of propagating false and heretical doctrines; others, finally, to satisfy a foolish curiosity concerning prominent Biblical persons. These apocryphal books are not entirely without value. To the student of the Scriptures they at time furnish interesting information concerning the customs, habits of life, religious views, and opinions of their time. They show, in particular, the higher and nobler character of the inspired books of the Bible.

The apocryphal books are divided into two classes on the basis of their subject matter and reputed authors:

1. The Old Testament apocrypha were written chiefly by Jews, though some contain interpolations by Christians. These books propose fictitious narratives about Biblical persons, or add pious exhortations and precepts to the Mosaic Law, or in the style of prophecy an the name of some patriarch or prophet foretell the near advent of the Messianic reign. The most famous apocrypha of the Old Testament are the third and fourth books of Esdras and the prayer of Manasses, books often given as an appendix in the Latin Vulgate. Other apocryphal books of the Old Testament are: Book of Henoch, Assumption of Moses, Apocalypse of Abraham, Psalms of Solomon, Sibylline Oracles, Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, Ascension of Isaias.

2. The New Testament apocrypha are usually imitation of the genuine sacred books of the Bible. They treat at length matters either briefly mentioned in the Biblical books or omitted entirely. Their favorite themes are the infancy of our Lord or His life on earth after His resurrection. They contain many silly and foolish legends and are lacking in the simplicity and sublimity of the Biblical books. What they add to the four Gospels is made up on the whole either of crude amplifications or of legends. The portrait of our Lord in particular is a caricature of the true image which we find in the canonical Gospels. The Divine Child is frequently represented as haughty, capricious, and performing miracles for purely selfish reasons. Much about Him is artificial and theatrical. Some fifty Gospels, twenty-two Acts, and many Epistles and Apocalypses of diverse Apostles are known to have existed, though many have perished. Famous among these writings is the Letter of King Abgar to our Lord. Other New Testament apocrypha are: Gospels according to the Hebrew and according to the Egyptians; Gospels of Peter and of Thomas; the Proto-Evangelium of James; Acts of Peter and Paul; Apocalypses of Peter, of Paul, of Bartholomew; Epistle of Paul and Seneca.

(1) Esther 10:14 to 16:14).
(2) Daniel 3:24-90; 13, 14).

The Evangelization Station

P.O. Box 267

Angels Camp, California 95222, USA

Telephone: 209-728-5598

E-mail: evangelization@earthlink.net www.evangelizationstation.com

Pamphlet 641

[John Leland 1789]

Everything you've presented on the LXX is just conjecture, tradition, defense of corrupt texts, the putting up of weirdos like Origin and the mystic Philo as credible sources, etc.

So, I'll put my "conjectures" out there, too, as I sense the need to get others to have second thoughts and do more research.

There's a whole lot of very good study to question a BC LXX. When I feel good and ready, and not before, I'll post some of it, or references thereto.

And when people put up the Talmud against God's word, and Origin, a man who had himself emasculated to be a eunoch for the kingdom of heaven's sake, and these kinds of freaks, I feel no need to do anything on such a one's schedule.

[aruanan]

Old Latin translations of the OT used the LXX. Jerome, charged by Pope Damascus in 382 to come up with a definitive Latin version, translated the LXX into Latin. Later he became enamored of Hebrew and, in the last years of his work translating, translated the Masoretic text into Latin with results that were, in some places, radically different from the LXX. If you were to have to decide between Jerome, working five to seven centuries later, translating an ancient Hebrew text with his newly acquired understanding of Hebrew and seventy Jewish scholars translating their own language into the common language of the region (Greek) about who was more likely to get the translation right, you'd have to go with the Seventy. As my Greek teacher told us, when we asked him how learning Greek compared to learning Hebrew, "It's like falling off a log compared to Hebrew."

I'd give the benefit of doubt to Hebrew speakers who knew Greek to come up with a more adequate translation of Hebrew into their every day Greek language than a Latin speaker who only later in life had started to translate the Hebrew scriptures. The same could be said of Jerome and the Masoretic text what Augustine complained about Latin speakers and the Greek text: anyone who knows a little Latin and Greek thinks he can come up with a translation. The result was the proliferation of inadequate, disparate translations that led to Pope Damascus giving his secretary the task of preparing a new Latin version.

And the Vulgate prepared by Jerome was of variable quality: the Gospels were still mostly of Byzantine origin and lesser of Old Latin versions (a two year rush job). The epistles were marginally revised Old Latin versions that had more of an Alexandrian origin. And by that time Jerome was immersed in his project to translate the Masoretic text into Latin. And the process of corruption continued over the centuries with Jerome's Vulgate. There were developed about as many variants as there were places it was used. Finally, the Church declared a need for a new official version of the Vulgate and came up with two, the latter of which, the Clementine Vulgate, was said to possess the extraordinary ability to preserve everything wrong from the previous versions.

[GonzoII]

"the fact remains that the apocryphal books were added to it well into the Christian era."

How then were they used in the 1st century.

From the post:

"Some of the New Testament writers made use of the deuterocanonicals books themselves, particularly the Book of Wisdom, which seems to have been St. Paul’s favorite volume. The Epistle of James, for example, shows familiarity with the book of Sirach".

DEUTEROCANONICAL BOOKS
IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

Back · Home · Next
 

 

Scripture

Matt. 2:16 - Herod's decree of slaying innocent children was prophesied in Wis. 11:7 - slaying the holy innocents.

Matt. 6:19-20 - Jesus' statement about laying up for yourselves treasure in heaven follows Sirach 29:11 - lay up your treasure.

Matt.. 7:12 - Jesus' golden rule "do unto others" is the converse of Tobit 4:15 - what you hate, do not do to others.

Matt. 7:16,20 - Jesus' statement "you will know them by their fruits" follows Sirach 27:6 - the fruit discloses the cultivation.

Matt. 9:36 - the people were "like sheep without a shepherd" is same as Judith 11:19 - sheep without a shepherd.

Matt. 11:25 - Jesus' description "Lord of heaven and earth" is the same as Tobit 7:18 - Lord of heaven and earth.

Matt. 12:42 - Jesus refers to the wisdom of Solomon which was recorded and made part of the deuterocanonical books.

Matt. 16:18 - Jesus' reference to the "power of death" and "gates of Hades" references Wisdom 16:13.

Matt. 22:25; Mark 12:20; Luke 20:29 - Gospel writers refer to the canonicity of Tobit 3:8 and 7:11 regarding the seven brothers.

Matt. 24:15 - the "desolating sacrilege" Jesus refers to is also taken from 1 Macc. 1:54 and 2 Macc. 8:17.

Matt. 24:16 - let those "flee to the mountains" is taken from 1 Macc. 2:28.

Matt. 27:43 - if He is God's Son, let God deliver him from His adversaries follows Wisdom 2:18.

Mark 4:5,16-17 - Jesus' description of seeds falling on rocky ground and having no root follows Sirach 40:15.

Mark 9:48 - description of hell where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched references Judith 16:17.

Luke 1:42 - Elizabeth's declaration of Mary's blessedness above all women follows Uzziah's declaration in Judith 13:18.

Luke 1:52 - Mary's magnificat addressing the mighty falling from their thrones and replaced by lowly follows Sirach 10:14.

Luke 2:29 - Simeon's declaration that he is ready to die after seeing the Child Jesus follows Tobit 11:9.

Luke 13:29 - the Lord's description of men coming from east and west to rejoice in God follows Baruch 4:37.

Luke 21:24 - Jesus' usage of "fall by the edge of the sword" follows Sirach 28:18.

Luke 24:4 and Acts 1:10 - Luke's description of the two men in dazzling apparel reminds us of 2 Macc. 3:26.

John 1:3 - all things were made through Him, the Word, follows Wisdom 9:1.

John 3:13 - who has ascended into heaven but He who descended from heaven references Baruch 3:29.

John 4:48; Acts 5:12; 15:12; 2 Cor. 12:12 - Jesus', Luke's and Paul's usage of "signs and wonders" follows Wisdom 8:8.

John 5:18 - Jesus claiming that God is His Father follows Wisdom 2:16.

John 6:35-59 - Jesus' Eucharistic discourse is foreshadowed in Sirach 24:21.

John 10:22 - the identification of the feast of the dedication is taken from 1 Macc. 4:59.

John 10:36 – Jesus accepts the inspiration of Maccabees as He analogizes the Hanukkah consecration to His own consecration to the Father in 1 Macc. 4:36.

John 15:6 - branches that don't bear fruit and are cut down follows Wis. 4:5 where branches are broken off.

Acts 1:15 - Luke's reference to the 120 may be a reference to 1 Macc. 3:55 - leaders of tens / restoration of the twelve.

Acts 10:34; Rom. 2:11; Gal. 2:6 - Peter's and Paul's statement that God shows no partiality references Sirach 35:12.

Acts 17:29 - description of false gods as like gold and silver made by men follows Wisdom 13:10.

Rom 1:18-25 - Paul's teaching on the knowledge of the Creator and the ignorance and sin of idolatry follows Wis. 13:1-10.

Rom. 1:20 - specifically, God's existence being evident in nature follows Wis. 13:1.

Rom. 1:23 - the sin of worshipping mortal man, birds, animals and reptiles follows Wis. 11:15; 12:24-27; 13:10; 14:8.

Rom. 1:24-27 - this idolatry results in all kinds of sexual perversion which follows Wis. 14:12,24-27.

Rom. 4:17 - Abraham is a father of many nations follows Sirach 44:19.

Rom. 5:12 - description of death and sin entering into the world is similar to Wisdom 2:24.

Rom. 9:21 - usage of the potter and the clay, making two kinds of vessels follows Wisdom 15:7.

1 Cor. 2:16 - Paul's question, "who has known the mind of the Lord?" references Wisdom 9:13.

1 Cor. 6:12-13; 10:23-26 - warning that, while all things are good, beware of gluttony, follows Sirach 36:18 and 37:28-30.

1 Cor. 8:5-6 - Paul acknowledging many "gods" but one Lord follows Wis. 13:3.

1 Cor. 10:1 - Paul's description of our fathers being under the cloud passing through the sea refers to Wisdom 19:7.

1 Cor. 10:20 - what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God refers to Baruch 4:7.

1 Cor. 15:29 - if no expectation of resurrection, it would be foolish to be baptized on their behalf follows 2 Macc. 12:43-45.

Eph. 1:17 - Paul's prayer for a "spirit of wisdom" follows the prayer for the spirit of wisdom in Wisdom 7:7.

Eph. 6:14 - Paul describing the breastplate of righteousness is the same as Wis. 5:18. See also Isaiah 59:17 and 1 Thess. 5:8.

Eph. 6:13-17 - in fact, the whole discussion of armor, helmet, breastplate, sword, shield follows Wis. 5:17-20.

1 Tim. 6:15 - Paul's description of God as Sovereign and King of kings is from 2 Macc. 12:15; 13:4.

2 Tim. 4:8 - Paul's description of a crown of righteousness is similar to Wisdom 5:16.

Heb. 4:12 - Paul's description of God's word as a sword is similar to Wisdom 18:15.

Heb. 11:5 - Enoch being taken up is also referenced in Wis 4:10 and Sir 44:16. See also 2 Kings 2:1-13 & Sir 48:9 regarding Elijah.

Heb 11:35 - Paul teaches about the martyrdom of the mother and her sons described in 2 Macc. 7:1-42.

Heb. 12:12 - the description "drooping hands" and "weak knees" comes from Sirach 25:23.

James 1:19 - let every man be quick to hear and slow to respond follows Sirach 5:11.

James 2:23 - it was reckoned to him as righteousness follows 1 Macc. 2:52 - it was reckoned to him as righteousness.

James 3:13 - James' instruction to perform works in meekness follows Sirach 3:17.

James 5:3 - describing silver which rusts and laying up treasure follows Sirach 29:10-11.

James 5:6 - condemning and killing the "righteous man" follows Wisdom 2:10-20.

1 Peter 1:6-7 - Peter teaches about testing faith by purgatorial fire as described in Wisdom 3:5-6 and Sirach 2:5.

1 Peter 1:17 - God judging each one according to his deeds refers to Sirach 16:12 - God judges man according to his deeds.

2 Peter 2:7 - God's rescue of a righteous man (Lot) is also described in Wisdom 10:6.

Rev. 1:4 – the seven spirits who are before his throne is taken from Tobit 12:15 – Raphael is one of the seven holy angels who present the prayers of the saints before the Holy One.

Rev. 1:18; Matt. 16:18 - power of life over death and gates of Hades follows Wis. 16:13.

Rev. 2:12 - reference to the two-edged sword is similar to the description of God's Word in Wisdom 18:16.

Rev. 5:7 - God is described as seated on His throne, and this is the same description used in Sirach 1:8.

Rev. 8:3-4 - prayers of the saints presented to God by the hand of an angel follows Tobit 12:12,15.

Rev. 8:7 - raining of hail and fire to the earth follows Wisdom 16:22 and Sirach 39:29.

Rev. 9:3 - raining of locusts on the earth follows Wisdom 16:9.

Rev. 11:19 - the vision of the ark of the covenant (Mary) in a cloud of glory was prophesied in 2 Macc. 2:7.

Rev. 17:14 - description of God as King of kings follows 2 Macc. 13:4.

Rev. 19:1 - the cry "Hallelujah" at the coming of the new Jerusalem follows Tobit 13:18.

Rev. 19:11 - the description of the Lord on a white horse in the heavens follows 2 Macc. 3:25; 11:8.

Rev. 19:16 - description of our Lord as King of kings is taken from 2 Macc. 13:4.

Rev. 21:19 - the description of the new Jerusalem with precious stones is prophesied in Tobit 13:17.

Exodus 23:7 - do not slay the innocent and righteous - Dan. 13:53 - do not put to death an innocent and righteous person.

1 Sam. 28:7-20 – the intercessory mediation of deceased Samuel for Saul follows Sirach 46:20.

2 Kings 2:1-13 – Elijah being taken up into heaven follows Sirach 48:9.

2 Tim. 3:16 - the inspired Scripture that Paul was referring to included the deuterocanonical texts that the Protestants removed. The books Baruch, Tobit, Maccabees, Judith, Sirach, Wisdom and parts of Daniel and Esther were all included in the Septuagint that Jesus and the apostles used.

Sirach and 2 Maccabees – some Protestants argue these books are not inspired because the writers express uncertainty about their abilities. But sacred writers are often humble about their divinely inspired writings. See, for example, 1 Cor. 7:40 – Paul says he “thinks” that he has the Spirit of God.

The Protestants attempt to defend their rejection of the deuterocanonicals on the ground that the early Jews rejected them. However, the Jewish councils that rejected them (e.g., School of Javneh (also called “Jamnia” in 90 - 100 A.D.) were the same councils that rejected the entire New Testatment canon. Thus, Protestants who reject the Catholic Bible are following a Jewish council that rejected Christ and the Revelation of the New Testament.

Top

 

[cizinec]

Your statements are misleading.

We don’t know the exact dates of the writing of the books. Tobit is certainly a part of the DSS, for example, a source which Protestants and Catholics both quote with glee any time they feel it serves their purposes.

However, before we get into a contest here, I will point out that I am Eastern Orthodox. We use a version of the LXX. In fact, the Russians use one version, the Greeks another, the Antiochians another (and some Greeks use one version and other Greeks another), who knows what the OCA uses and I’m Serbian Orthodox and I have no idea which one we use in Slavonic (I use a version in English).

How is this possible that these people are all in the same church? Because we didn’t confuse the Eternal Logos that is Christ for the Scriptures. The Faith is the Faith and that is what is important to us. In that view, the Holy Gospels are of absolute importance, as are the writings of St. Paul and others, WHOSE BOOKS WE ALL AGREE ARE CANONICAL.

These books, which you argue against, were clearly used by early Christians and Jews. Their exact text is not an issue unless they dispute Christ. Indeed, they often correct confusion left without the LXX.

The Masoretes hated the books in the LXX as they clearly supported and pointed to Christ. If you wish to accept the Masoretes, go ahead. It explains quite a bit of 16th and 18th century theological innovations (not a good thing for eternal truth), but that’s your choice.

That said, without the LXX, the bible seems to leave out a huge hunk of time where God appears to disappear from the scene. There are prophets. God goes for a glass of wine (or grape juice) and then comes back when the Romans show up. Odd.

[jjotto]

The Torah in “Translation”

Here’s a letter that has been spell-checked:

Dear Shovel,

Just a line to thank you for a lovely shabby. Your wife Fruity is a real ballet buster! What a cook! Her guilty fish, coolant, kudos, kibble, times and shrivel were out of this world. But are you sure the partridge cream on the lockjaw pudding really was partridge? It was so delicious that I forgive her even if it wasn’t.

You’ve got a lovely mishmash. Your Sore was a mechanic to look at, while your Muesli has the makings of a real menace. They should only give you nachos. Even your trigger was not the late kicker everyone says she is, but I’ll bet your shower, olive hashish, feels he’s happier where he is. May she live to be hunchbacked and tantalizing.

As for your spool, quite frankly it wasn’t worth the scrap. They didn’t stop oozing for a minute. It was as noisy as our stable, but not half as hellish.

Your chaser was toneless, and the drastic your Rave gave was so long, I thought I would pilates! Even your shame was a shoe. The tallies he gave me was an ale shatter, with all the tizzies gone, and I doubt if he knows a chum ash from a spider. And you’d think, as a visitor from out of town, they would at least have given me an alias, but what did they offer? Hatbox - while I was still convalescing from a double hernia! What a hotspot!

As you know I’m not one to harbor fairies, but a messy miasma would be too good for them.

Wishing you a Hog Smooch, Chain

and here’s the original:

Dear Shmuel,

Just a line to thank you for a lovely Shabbos. Your wife Fruma is a real balabusteh (great homemaker)! What a cook! Her gefilte fish, cholent, kugel, kishka, tzimmes and shtrudel were out of this world. But are you sure the pareve (containing no milk or meat) cream on the lokshen (noodle) pudding was really pareve? It was so delicious that I forgive her even if it wasn’t.

You’ve got a lovely mishpoche (family). Your Soraleh was a mechayeh (delight) to look at, while your Moishele has the makings of a real mensch. They should only give you nachas (joy). Even your shvigger (mother-in-law) was not the alta kocker (old and complaining person) everyone says she is, but I’ll bet your shver (father-in-law), olov hasholem (may he rest in peace), feels he’s happier where he is. May she live to be a hundert und tzvanzig (120 years old).

As for your shul (synagogue), quite frankly it wasn’t worth the schlep. They didn’t stop schmoozing for a minute. It was as noisy as our shteeble (little shul), but not half as heimish (cozy).

Your chazzan (cantor) was toneless, and the drashah (sermon) your Rav (rabbi) gave was so long, I thought I would plotz (collapse)! Even your shammas (sexton in the synagogue) was a schmo (idiot). The tallis (prayer shawl) he gave me was an alta shmatta (old rag), with all the tzitzis (fringes) gone, and I doubt if he knows a chumash (Bible) from a siddur (prayer book). And you’d think, as a visitor from out of town, they would at least have given me an aliyah (the honor of being called up to make blessings on the Torah), but what did they offer? Hagboh (lifting the Torah) - while I was still convalescing from a double hernia! What a chutzpah (nerve)!

As you know I’m not one to harbor faribbles (grudges), but a meessa meshunah (horrible death) would be too good for them.

Wishing you a Chag Sameach (Happy Holiday), Chaim

[Jim Noble]

All those are merely human division of the Bible. Christ Himself gave the proper division of the OT

And who divided and ordered the NT?

[Cronos]

from the article

Some of the New Testament writers made use of the deuterocanonicals books themselves, particularly the Book of Wisdom, which seems to have been St. Paul’s favorite volume. The Epistle of James, for example, shows familiarity with the book of Sirach. If the Apostles and New Testament writers used some of the deuterocanonical books, did they not thereby endorse the entire and longer Septuagint collection?

[Cronos]

Yes, I didn’t know that either!

[cizinec]

“translated the Masoretic text into Latin . . .”

That is incorrect. The Hebrew text was proto-Masoretic. The Masoretes did not exist until the 7th Century. Jerome’s translations appear to be near those of the Masoretes, but certainly not exact.

[Cronos]

Luke 24:44

And he said to them: These are the words which I spoke to you, while I was yet with you, that all things must needs be fulfilled, which are written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

-- if one takes this, then one has quite a truncated list.

[GonzoII]

"None of the verses you quote are from any of the controversial books."

I'll stand by my sources, you show me yours.

[Cronos]

The Septuagint is the Koine Greek version of the Hebrew Bible, translated in stages between the 3rd and 2nd century BC in Alexandria. It was begun by the 3rd century BCE and completed before 132 BC

According to the record in the Talmud in the 3rd century BC

'King Ptolemy once gathered 72 Elders. He placed them in 72 chambers, each of them in a separate one, without revealing to them why they were summoned. He entered each one's room and said: 'Write for me the Torah of Moshe, your teacher.' God put it in the heart of each one to translate identically as all the others did'"

[GonzoII]

"-- if one takes this, then one has quite a truncated list."

I quit if Job isn't inspired!!

[cizinec]

. . . and in case anyone thinks this argument is new . . .

“... I beseech you not to devote your labour to the work of translating into Latin the sacred canonical books, unless you follow the method in which you have translated Job, viz. with the addition of notes, to let it be seen plainly what differences there are between this version of yours and that of the Septuagint, whose authority is worthy of highest esteem. For my own part, I cannot sufficiently express my wonder that anything should at this date be found in the Hebrew manuscripts which escaped so many translators perfectly acquainted with the language. I say nothing of the Seventy, regarding whose harmony in mind and spirit, surpassing that which is found in even one man, I dare not in any way pronounce a decided opinion, except that in my judgment, beyond question, very high authority must in this work of translation be conceded to them. I am more perplexed by those translators who, though enjoying the advantage of labouring after the Seventy had completed their work, and although well acquainted, as it is reported, with the force of Hebrew words and phrases, and with Hebrew syntax, have not only failed to agree among themselves, but have left many things which, even after so long a time, still remain to be discovered and brought to light. Now these things were either obscure or plain: if they were obscure, it is believed that you are as likely to have been mistaken as the others; if they were plain, it is not believed that they [the Seventy] could possibly have been mistaken. Having stated the grounds of my perplexity, I appeal to your kindness to give me an answer regarding this matter....”

Letter of Augustine (who most Orthodox don’t like much) to Jerome (who we do like) written in about 394.

[sayuncledave]

GonzoII, outstanding post! Thank you very, very much. Nicely done, and nicely commented by (most) all.

[jjotto]

...the Torah of Moshe, your teacher...

So in the Jewish version, the inspired text was of the Five Books of Moses and not of the whole Old Testament?

[muawiyah]

Good point on when the copies of books we still have were prepared ~ but it may not be exactly the point you think you are making.

The Mahabarat and Ramayana were both prepared sometime in the late First Century CE/AD.

Buddha's 1000 greatest sermons (we might call them) were also put together in popular volumes in that period.

Julius Caesar's works were suddenly quite widespread, and so on.

We might ask what these documents have in common ~ and we'd be right to do so.

A couple of things happen in that period across a wide belt of civilized states ~ first, they began using materials that would last far longer than the parchment and prepared skins used previously. The price of silk dropped (in both China and the West) for example, and could be incorporated into otherwise unwoven sheets. Secondly, the works produced in the previous 150 years got copied over to the new materials and lasted. The Chinese invention of paper created through the use of temporary screens from wood pulp and linen spread like wildfire across Eur-Asia.

To a great degree until the Dead Sea Scrolls were found there weren't very many truly ancient texts of any kind at all to be found anywhere. The ones we had were "copies" created in the First, Second and Third centuries. They also happened to be in the more popular languages of the time ~ and early in the period Greek was the real deal, and later on Latin took over ~ in the West. China wrapped up its written language and that's been fixed pretty much since that time although the characters have changed. In India, with the Hindu Revolution in the Second Century, the Buddhists were forced out thus precipitating their assembly of ancient writings (hurriedly) and the copying of those documents into Chinese and Tibetan.

I suppose there was some dramatic religious meaning to all of this but it looks to me to be nothing more than what you would expect to happen any time a brand new recording medium is introduced.

We see the phenomenon regularly in our own time ~ and even old Leadbelly recordings done on wire recorders have been REFORMATTED and RECOVERED by computers to give them a full and modern sound. Some purists are, I suppose, still listening to the originals ~ but why would they do that?

[GonzoII]

"Thank you very, very much"

You're welcome.

[Hawthorn]

>> The Apocrypha, and why it's not Scripture <<

I can't take seriously the scholarship of a writer who seems not to appreciate the difference in Greek between a singular noun (ἀπόκρυφος) and a plural noun (ἀπόκρυφα).

[CondiArmy]

The good people of The Evangelization Station should take up a collection and hire a proof reader.