Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Catholic and Protestant Bibles
Evangelization Station ^ | Victor R. Claveau, MJ

Posted on 12/31/2010 3:16:25 AM PST by 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



TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; History; Theology
KEYWORDS: bible; freformed; scripture
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-72 next last
THE PENTATEUCH BOOKS

Genesis Exodus Leviticus Numbers Deuteronomy

THE HISTORICAL BOOKS

Joshua Judges Ruth 1 Samuel 2 Samuel 1 Kings 2 Kings 1 Chronicles 2 Chronicles Ezra Nehemiah Tobit Judith Esther 1 Maccabees 2 Maccabees

BOOKS OF WISDOM AND POETRY

Job Psalms Proverbs Ecclesiastes Song of Solomon Wisdom of Solomon Sirach (Ecclesiasticus)

THE PROPHETICAL BOOKS

Isaiah Jeremiah Lamentations Baruch Ezekiel Daniel Hosea Joel Amos Obadiah Jonah Micah Nahum Habakkuk Zephaniah Haggai Zachariah Malachi

THE NEW TESTAMENT

(Rheims, A.D. 1582.)

GOSPEL BOOKS

St. Matthew* St. Mark * St. Luke * St. John *

HISTORICAL BOOK

The Acts of the Apostles *

PAULINE AND OTHER LETTERS

Romans 1 Corinthians * 2 Corinthians * Galatians Ephesians Philippians Colossians 1 Thessalonians 2 Thessalonians 1 Timothy 2 Timothy Titus Philemon Hebrews

CATHOLIC LETTERS

James 1 Peter 2 Peter 1 John 2 John 3 John Jude

APOCALYPSE BOOK

The Apocalypse of St. John: (Also known as the Book of Revelation.)*

1 posted on 12/31/2010 3:16:31 AM PST by GonzoII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: GonzoII
"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)."

You learn something every day.

2 posted on 12/31/2010 3:18:40 AM PST by GonzoII ("That they may be one...Father")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

All those are merely human division of the Bible.

Christ Himself gave the proper division of the Old Testament in Luke 24:44.


3 posted on 12/31/2010 3:25:03 AM PST by John Leland 1789 (Grateful.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
Sorry, I missed a paragraph. In bold:

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.

The Protestants of the sixteenth century objected to the deuterocanonical books because of their dogmatic content. Thus the second book of Maccabees (12:39-46), for instance contains the doctrine of purgatory, of prayers and sacrifices for the dead. The book of Tobias teaches the efficacy of good works, and the book of Sirach (15:11-20) clearly teaches that man has free will. The Protestants could not consistently reject some without excluding all the deuterocanonical books. Hence, in drawing up their list of Old Testament books they went back to the list of the Palestinian Jews. They removed the deuterocanonical books from their traditional place among the protocanonical books and placed them at the end in a special appendix. In addition, they designated them as “apocryphal” (spurious, uninspired), a tem which helped to lower them in the estimation of Protestant readers. The Lutheran and Anglican Bibles still carry them in the appendix or give them a least a secondary rank. But the nonconformistic churches reject them entirely. In 1827 the British and Foreign Bible Society decided not to handle or print Bibles that contained the deuterocanonical books and not to subsidize companies that published them. In consequence, the deuterocanonical books have practically disappeared from Protestant Bibles. The Protestant opposition to these books has in turn influenced the attitude of the Greek and Russian Churches.

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)......


4 posted on 12/31/2010 3:29:41 AM PST by GonzoII ("That they may be one...Father")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

Interesting. As a child, I was raised in several different Protestant churches. Their take on it was that the Catholic Church had, against scriptural direction, ADDED books to the Bible. In fact, we were also taught that the Catholic ‘version’ contained language, in summary, that ONLY Catholics will be saved/go to heaven.

Thank goodness the God of my understanding is bigger than any ‘religion’. What he must think of us and our petty differences?!


5 posted on 12/31/2010 3:32:16 AM PST by Kimberly GG ("Path to Citizenship" Amnesty candidates will NOT get my vote! ~ DeMint, 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John Leland 1789
"All those are merely human division of the Bible.

Christ Himself gave the proper division of the Old Testament in Luke 24:44. "

What if they are? Christ as well as other NT writers used the Septuagint that's my interest here. Why don't you do the same?:


SEPTUAGINT QUOTES
IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

Back · Home · Next
 

 

Of the approximately 300 Old Testament quotes in the New Testament, approximately 2/3 of them came from the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament) which included the deuterocanonical books that the Protestants later removed. This is additional evidence that Jesus and the apostles viewed the deuterocanonical books as part of canon of the Old Testament. Here are some examples:

Matt. 1:23 / Isaiah 7:14 - behold, a "virgin" shall conceive. Hebrew - behold, a "young woman" shall conceive.

Matt. 3:3; Mark 1:3; John 1:23 / Isaiah 40:3 - make "His paths straight." Hebrew - make "level in the desert a highway."

Matt. 9:13; 12:7 / Hosea 6:6 - I desire "mercy" and not sacrifice. Hebrew - I desire "goodness" and not sacrifice.

Matt. 12:21 / Isaiah 42:4 - in His name will the Gentiles hope (or trust). Hebrew - the isles shall wait for his law.

Matt. 13:15 / Isaiah 6:10 - heart grown dull; eyes have closed; to heal. Hebrew - heart is fat; ears are heavy; eyes are shut; be healed.

Matt. 15:9; Mark 7:7 / Isaiah 29:13 - teaching as doctrines the precepts of men. Hebrew - a commandment of men (not doctrines).

Matt. 21:16 / Psalm 8:2 - out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou has "perfect praise." Hebrew - thou has "established strength."

Mark 7:6-8 – Jesus quotes Isaiah 29:13 from the Septuagint – “This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.”

Luke 3:5-6 / Isaiah 40:4-5 - crooked be made straight, rough ways smooth, shall see salvation. Hebrew - omits these phrases.

Luke 4:18 / Isaiah 61:1 - and recovering of sight to the blind. Hebrew - the opening of prison to them that are bound.

Luke 4:18 / Isaiah 58:6 - to set at liberty those that are oppressed (or bruised). Hebrew - to let the oppressed go free.

John 6:31 / Psalm 78:24 - He gave them "bread" out of heaven to eat. Hebrew - gave them "food" or "grain" from heaven.

John 12:38 / Isaiah 53:1 - who has believed our "report?" Hebrew - who has believed our "message?"

John 12:40 / Isaiah 6:10 - lest they should see with eyes...turn for me to heal them. Hebrew - shut their eyes...and be healed.

Acts 2:19 / Joel 2:30 - blood and fire and "vapor" of smoke. Hebrew - blood and fire and "pillars" or "columns" of smoke.

Acts 2:25-26 / Psalm 16:8 - I saw...tongue rejoiced...dwell in hope.. Hebrew - I have set...glory rejoiced...dwell in safety.

Acts 4:26 / Psalm 2:1 - the rulers "were gathered together." Hebrew - rulers "take counsel together."

Acts 7:14 / Gen. 46:27; Deut. 10:22 - Stephen says "seventy-five" souls went down to Egypt. Hebrew - "seventy" people went.

Acts 7:27-28 / Exodus 2:14 - uses "ruler" and judge; killed the Egyptian "yesterday." Hebrew - uses "prince" and there is no reference to "yesterday."

Acts 7:43 / Amos 5:26-27 - the tent of "Moloch" and star of god of Rephan. Hebrew - "your king," shrine, and star of your god.

Acts 8:33 / Isaiah 53:7-8 - in his humiliation justice was denied him. Hebrew - by oppression...he was taken away.

Acts 13:41 / Habakkuk 1:5 - you "scoffers" and wonder and "perish." Hebrew - you "among the nations," and "be astounded."

Acts 15:17 / Amos 9:12 - the rest (or remnant) of "men." Hebrew - the remnant of "Edom."

Rom. 2:24 / Isaiah 52:5 - the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles. Hebrew - blasphemed (there is no mention of the Gentiles).

Rom. 3:4 / Psalm 51:4 - thou mayest "prevail" (or overcome) when thou art judged. Hebrew - thou might "be clear" when thou judges.

Rom. 3:12 / Psalm 14:1,3 - they "have gone wrong." Hebrew - they are "corrupt" or "filthy."

Rom. 3:13 / Psalm 5:9 - they use their tongues to deceive. Hebrew - they flatter with their tongues. There is no "deceit" language.

Rom. 3:13 / Psalm 140:3 - the venom of "asps" is under their lips. Hebrew - "Adder's" poison is under their lips.

Rom. 3:14 / Psalm 10:7 - whose mouth is full of curses and "bitterness." Hebrew - cursing and "deceit and oppression."

Rom. 9:17 / Exodus 9:16 - my power "in you"; my name may be "proclaimed." Hebrew - show "thee"; may name might be "declared."

Rom. 9:25 / Hosea 2:23 - I will call my people; I will call my beloved. Hebrew - I will have mercy (love versus mercy).

Rom. 9:27 / Isaiah 10:22 - only a remnant of them "will be saved." Hebrew - only a remnant of them "will return."

Rom. 9:29 / Isaiah 1:9 - had not left us "children." Hebrew - Jehova had left us a "very small remnant."

Rom. 9:33; 10:11; 1 Peter 2:6 / Isaiah 28:16 - he who believes will not be "put to shame." Hebrew - shall not be "in haste."

Rom. 10:18 / Psalm 19:4 - their "voice" has gone out. Hebrew - their "line" is gone out.

Rom. 10:20 / Isaiah 65:1 - I have "shown myself" to those who did not ask for me. Hebrew - I am "inquired of" by them.

Rom. 10:21 / Isaiah 65:2 - a "disobedient and contrary" people. Hebrew - a "rebellious" people.

Rom. 11:9-10 / Psalm 69:22-23 - "pitfall" and "retribution" and "bend their backs." Hebrew - "trap" and "make their loins shake."

Rom. 11:26 / Isaiah 59:20 - will banish "ungodliness." Hebrew - turn from "transgression."

Rom. 11:27 / Isaiah 27:9 - when I take away their sins. Hebrew - this is all the fruit of taking away his sin.

Rom. 11:34; 1 Cor. 2:16 / Isaiah 40:13 -the "mind" of the Lord; His "counselor." Hebrew - "spirit" of the Lord; "taught" Him.

Rom. 12:20 / Prov. 25:21 - feed him and give him to drink. Hebrew - give him "bread" to eat and "water" to drink.

Rom. 15:12 / Isaiah 11:10 - the root of Jesse..."to rule the Gentiles." Hebrew - stands for an ensign. There is nothing about the Gentiles.

Rom. 15:21 / Isaiah 52:15 - been told "of him"; heard "of him." Hebrew - does not mention "him" (the object of the prophecy).

1 Cor. 1:19 / Isaiah 29:14 - "I will destroy" the wisdom of the wise. Hebrew - wisdom of their wise men "shall perish."

1 Cor. 5:13 / Deut. 17:7 - remove the "wicked person." Hebrew - purge the "evil." This is more generic evil in the MT.

1 Cor. 15:55 / Hosea 13:14 - O death, where is thy "sting?" Hebrew - O death, where are your "plagues?"

2 Cor. 4:13 / Psalm 116:10 - I believed and so I spoke (past tense). Hebrew - I believe, for I will speak (future tense).

2 Cor. 6:2 / Isaiah 49:8 - I have "listened" to you. Hebrew - I have "answered" you.

Gal. 3:10 / Deut. 27:26 - cursed be every one who does not "abide" by all things. Hebrew - does not "confirm" the words.

Gal. 3:13 / Deut. 21:23 - cursed is everyone who hangs on a "tree." Hebrew - a hanged man is accursed. The word "tree" does not follow.

Gal. 4:27 / Isaiah 54:1 - "rejoice" and "break forth and shout." Hebrew - "sing" and "break forth into singing."

2 Tim. 2:19 / Num. 16:5 - The Lord "knows" those who are His. Hebrew - God will "show" who are His.

Heb. 1:6 / Deut. 32:43 - let all the angels of God worship Him. Hebrew - the Masoretic text omits this phrase from Deut. 32:43.

Heb. 1:12 / Psalm 102:25 - like a "mantle" ... "roll them"... "will be changed." Hebrew - "raiment"... "change"..."pass away."

Heb. 2:7 / Psalm 8:5 - thou has made Him a little "lower than angels." Hebrew - made Him but a little "lower than God."

Heb. 2:12 / Psalm 22:22 - I will " sing" thy praise. Hebrew - I will praise thee. The LXX and most NTs (but not the RSV) have "sing."

Heb. 2:13 / Isaiah 8:17 - I will "put my trust in Him." Hebrew - I will "look for Him."

Heb. 3:15 / Psalm 95:8 - do not harden your hearts as "in the rebellion." Hebrew - harden not your hearts "as at Meribah."

Heb. 3:15; 4:7 / Psalm 95:7 - when you hear His voice do not harden not your hearts. Hebrew - oh that you would hear His voice!

Heb. 8:9-10 / Jer. 31:32-33 - (nothing about husband); laws into their mind. Hebrew - I was a husband; law in their inward parts.

Heb. 9:28 / Isaiah 10:22 - "to save those" who are eagerly awaiting for Him. Hebrew - a remnant of them "shall return."

Heb. 10:5 / Psalm 40:6 - "but a body hast thou prepared for me." Hebrew - "mine ears hast thou opened."

Heb. 10:38 / Hab. 2:3-4 - if he shrinks (or draws) back, my soul shall have no pleasure. Hebrew - his soul is puffed up, not upright.

Heb. 11:5 / Gen. 5:24 - Enoch was not "found." Hebrew - Enoch was "not."

Heb. 11:21 / Gen. 47:31 - Israel, bowing "over the head of his staff." Hebrew - there is nothing about bowing over the head of his staff.

Heb. 12:6 / Prov. 3:12 - He chastises every son whom He receives. Hebrew - even as a father the son in whom he delights.

Heb. 13:6 / Psalm 118:6 - the Lord "is my helper." Hebrew - Jehova "is on my side." The LXX and the NT are identical.

James 4:6 / Prov. 3:34 - God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble. Hebrew - He scoffs at scoffers and gives grace to the lowly.

1 Peter 1:24 / Isaiah 40:6 - all its "glory" like the flower. Hebrew - all the "goodliness" as the flower.

1 Pet. 2:9 / Exodus 19:6 - you are a "royal priesthood." Hebrew - you shall be to me a "kingdom of priests."

1 Pet. 2:9 / Isaiah 43:21 - God's own people...who called you out of darkness. Heb. - which I formed myself. These are different actions.

1 Pet. 2:22 / Isaiah 53:9 - he "committed no sin." Hebrew - he "had done no violence."

1 Pet. 4:18 / Prov. 11:31 - if a righteous man "is scarcely saved." Hebrew - if the righteous "is recompensed."

1 Pet. 5:5 / Prov. 3:34 - God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble. Hebrew - He scoffs at scoffers and gives grace to lowly.

Isaiah 11:2 - this verse describes the Seven Gifts of the Holy Spirit, but the seventh gift, "piety," is only found in the Septuagint.

Top

 


Copyright 2001 - 2007 © by John Salza. All Rights Reserved.
johnsalza@scripturecatholic.com

6 posted on 12/31/2010 3:43:17 AM PST by GonzoII ("That they may be one...Father")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Kimberly GG
"What he must think of us and our petty differences?!"

I wouldn't consider the removal of parts of God's Word "petty".

7 posted on 12/31/2010 3:46:57 AM PST by GonzoII ("That they may be one...Father")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII
There is actually no real proof of a B.C. Septuagint. The Septuagint was not done until after the completion of the N.T.

This has been a ruse in the manuscript evidence field for a hundred years now.

8 posted on 12/31/2010 3:47:53 AM PST by John Leland 1789 (Grateful.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: John Leland 1789

Really? Philo said it was BCE. Josephus says it was BCE. The Talmud says it was BCE. Origen (whose major work on the LXX has been tragically lost) says it was BCE.

Christ himself quoted from it. Did you fail to see the post above????? Why Christ would quote from something not yet written seems a bit odd to me and makes your argument seem either silly or disingenuous.

If you don’t accept the LXX, that’s fine. At least reject it for reasons that are remotely reasonable. Even my evangelical brother who rejects the LXX would be moaning at such a ridiculous statement.


9 posted on 12/31/2010 4:22:29 AM PST by cizinec
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: John Leland 1789

You wrote:

“Christ Himself gave the proper division of the Old Testament in Luke 24:44.”

Christ gave the division that was commonly said in His day.


10 posted on 12/31/2010 4:23:49 AM PST by vladimir998 (Copts, Nazis, Franks and Beans - what a public school education puts in your head.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: John Leland 1789
"There is actually no real proof of a B.C. Septuagint."

The very quotes of Christ and NT writers themselves from Septuagint verified by the copies that we have today prove its existence in the years prior to Christ's coming.

11 posted on 12/31/2010 4:37:20 AM PST by GonzoII ("That they may be one...Father")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: cizinec
"Philo, Josephus, the Talmud, Origen"

All corrupt and questionable sources.

"Christ himself quoted from it."

No, it might have used material from NT sources that make it appear the other way around. Still no proof of a BC Sept.

12 posted on 12/31/2010 4:38:55 AM PST by John Leland 1789 (Grateful.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: John Leland 1789

6. Minor Prophets in Greek
8HevXIIgr
Scroll type: Biblical text
Date: 1st century BCE
Language: Greek
Discovered: “Cave of Horror” in Nahal Hever, 1952-1962
Habakkuk 1:11-Zephaniah 3:7

The presence of Greek biblical texts among the Dead Sea Scrolls illustrates that many Jews of this time could speak and read Greek, rather than or in addition to Hebrew. During the last four centuries of the Second Temple Period (536 BCE-70 CE), the Greeks and then the Romans conquered the land of ancient Israel and Judah, and many Jews also dispersed throughout the Middle East under Greek influence.

Although the scroll text appears in Greek, this translation follows the Hebrew original, rather than the widely-used Greek translation from 300-200 BCE called the Septuagint. The so-called “minor prophets” appear as 12 individual books in the Greek Septuagint and in the Christian Old Testament, but as a single volume in the Hebrew Bible. Dead Sea Scroll fragments contain prophetic writings of Jonah, Nahum, Micah, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, and Zechariah.

From the San Diego Natural History Museum website.


13 posted on 12/31/2010 4:44:12 AM PST by vladimir998 (Copts, Nazis, Franks and Beans - what a public school education puts in your head.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

the people who assembled the NT canon,

used the LXX Old Testament...

or not, please enlighten me


14 posted on 12/31/2010 4:45:04 AM PST by Talf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John Leland 1789; cizinec
No, it might have used material from NT sources that make it appear the other way around. Still no proof of a BC Sept.

Let's put it this way: there are far more ancient sources that support an LXX written between the 3rd and 1st century BC than you have to support your claim that it wasn't (as well as the fact that it was the commonly used OT amongst Jews of the first half of the first century). All you have done is offer conjecture, hand-waving ("it might have used material from NT sources that make it appear the other away around"), and impugning of sources ("all corrupt and questionable sources").
15 posted on 12/31/2010 4:46:19 AM PST by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII
The Apocrypha, and why it's not Scripture
16 posted on 12/31/2010 4:52:13 AM PST by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (Charity that is not voluntary is not virtuous.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aruanan; John Leland 1789
Let's put it this way: there are far more ancient sources that support an LXX written between the 3rd and 1st century BC than you have to support your claim that it wasn't (as well as the fact that it was the commonly used OT amongst Jews of the first half of the first century). All you have done is offer conjecture, hand-waving ("it might have used material from NT sources that make it appear the other away around"), and impugning of sources ("all corrupt and questionable sources").

*A* Septuagint existed in the BC. Of course, it wasn't the *same* Septuagint as we have now, or at least parts of it were changed, retranslated, etc. This we know for a FACT.

I still don't understand the love people have for the LXX. Even in the more genuine parts, it's such a pitiful translation (really, more like a targum in many places) that it's actual value in the textual debates ought to be nil.

17 posted on 12/31/2010 4:59:24 AM PST by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (Charity that is not voluntary is not virtuous.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

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


18 posted on 12/31/2010 5:00:09 AM PST by alnick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII
I wouldn't consider the removal of parts of God's Word "petty".

Even if we wish to entertain the fiction that the LXX were a good (or even passable) translation, the fact remains that the apocryphal books were added to it well into the Christian era. They were not part of the Jewish canon, and in fact, most of these books did not even exist when the original (as opposed to the much later redacted) LXX was translated. Did you know, for instance, that Baruch wasn't even written until around 70 AD, or that the Wisdom of Solomon was produced at some point between 75 BC and 40 AD? Even other books like Susanna and Tobit were produced in the century prior to Christ - and were not included in the original production of the LXX between 250-200 BC.

19 posted on 12/31/2010 5:04:22 AM PST by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (Charity that is not voluntary is not virtuous.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: John Leland 1789

Philo could be mistaken. Josephus could be mistaken. The Talmud could be mistaken (your claim against the Talmud is the most bizarre, as it was written CE by a number of conservative Jews who would have no benefit from dating the LXX earlier). Origen could be mistaken.

All taken together, they make the same claim at different times and from different positions (Philo, Josepus and the Talmud are Jewish sources from different schools of Judaism and Origen is a Christian source).

If you are saying the Talmud was written by Christians, why would any Christian church write a book for Jews claiming Christ is not Christ? If some fictional group of international conspirators were intelligent enough to fool the world, they would have falsified a book to make the LXX clearly THE text, not some Jewish texts or some texts by a writer who was condemned as a heretic.

The Masoretic Text (which I am assuming you hold as correct) was not written until a full millennium after Christ and its use as a Christian source is extremely bizarre, as its text was definitively changed to point away from Christ.

While the Dead Sea Scrolls are about 35% are from the Masoretic tradition, most are other and the DSS contain books from the LXX that are excluded from the MT, primarily because they were some of the most convincing, pro-Christ texts in the Jewish Canon prior to the adoption of the MT 1000 years after Christ. Yes, the MT is in Hebrew. That doesn’t make it older, nor does it make it correct.


20 posted on 12/31/2010 5:05:14 AM PST by cizinec
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: aruanan
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.

21 posted on 12/31/2010 5:08:05 AM PST by John Leland 1789 (Grateful.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Talf
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.
22 posted on 12/31/2010 5:14:44 AM PST by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
"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

 


23 posted on 12/31/2010 5:21:32 AM PST by GonzoII ("That they may be one...Father")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

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.


24 posted on 12/31/2010 5:24:36 AM PST by cizinec
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

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


25 posted on 12/31/2010 5:26:48 AM PST by jjotto ("Ya could look it up!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John Leland 1789
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?

26 posted on 12/31/2010 5:29:07 AM PST by Jim Noble (Re-elect Palin 2016)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII
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?

27 posted on 12/31/2010 5:30:07 AM PST by Cronos (Kto jestem? Nie wiem! Ale moj Bog wie!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

Yes, I didn’t know that either!


28 posted on 12/31/2010 5:32:19 AM PST by Cronos (Kto jestem? Nie wiem! Ale moj Bog wie!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: aruanan

“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.


29 posted on 12/31/2010 5:34:21 AM PST by cizinec
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII
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.
30 posted on 12/31/2010 5:35:43 AM PST by Cronos (Kto jestem? Nie wiem! Ale moj Bog wie!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

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

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

31 posted on 12/31/2010 5:38:37 AM PST by GonzoII ("That they may be one...Father")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: John Leland 1789
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'"

32 posted on 12/31/2010 5:41:48 AM PST by Cronos (Kto jestem? Nie wiem! Ale moj Bog wie!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

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

I quit if Job isn't inspired!!

33 posted on 12/31/2010 5:42:57 AM PST by GonzoII ("That they may be one...Father")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

. . . 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.


34 posted on 12/31/2010 5:44:45 AM PST by cizinec
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

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


35 posted on 12/31/2010 6:03:28 AM PST by sayuncledave (A cruce salus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
...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?

36 posted on 12/31/2010 6:06:00 AM PST by jjotto ("Ya could look it up!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
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?

37 posted on 12/31/2010 6:11:49 AM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: sayuncledave
"Thank you very, very much"

You're welcome.

38 posted on 12/31/2010 6:15:29 AM PST by GonzoII ("That they may be one...Father")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
>> 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).

39 posted on 12/31/2010 6:55:48 AM PST by Hawthorn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

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


40 posted on 12/31/2010 7:19:23 AM PST by CondiArmy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

Thank you very much. I especially am persuaded by the jot and tittle from Matthew. What a powerful statement Our Lord makes about the words of the Hebrew prophets.


41 posted on 12/31/2010 7:50:31 AM PST by wbarmy (I chose to be a sheepdog once I saw what happens to the sheep.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

Excellent breakdown of the books. This is the way it is listed in my Bible too.


42 posted on 12/31/2010 7:55:36 AM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

**The Protestants of the sixteenth century objected to the deuterocanonical books because of their dogmatic content. **

Says it all right there.

Even Protestant know that the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Do they commit blasphemy against the Holy Spirit by not accepting the entire Bible? I wonder??????


43 posted on 12/31/2010 7:58:30 AM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: John Leland 1789
And how to you account for Luther's opinion?

Bible


"We are compelled to concede to the Papists
that they have the Word of God,
that we received it from them,
and that without them
we should have no knowledge of it at all."

~ Martin Luther



Catholic and Protestant Bibles
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH: ON READING THE BIBLE [Catholic Caucus]

Because I Love the Bible
Where Is That Taught in the Bible?
When Was the Bible Really Written?
Three Reasons for Teaching the Bible [St. Thomas Aquinas]
The Smiting Is Still Implied (God of the OT vs the NT)
Where Is That Taught in the Bible?
Friday Fast Fact: The Bible in English
Bible Reading is Central in Conversions to Catholicism in Shangai, Reports Organization
Verses (in Scripture) I Never Saw
5 Myths about 7 Books

Lectionary Statistics - How much of the Bible is included in the Lectionary for Mass? (Popquiz!)
Pope calls Catholics to daily meditation on the Bible
What Are the "Apocrypha?"
The Accuracy of Scripture
US Conference of Catholic Bishops recommendations for Bible study
CNA unveils resource to help Catholics understand the Scriptures
The Dos and Don’ts of Reading the Bible [Ecumenical]
Pope to lead marathon Bible reading on Italian TV
The Complete Bible: Why Catholics Have Seven More Books [Ecumenical]
Beginning Catholic: Books of the Catholic Bible: The Complete Scriptures [Ecumenical]

Beginning Catholic: When Was The Bible Written? [Ecumenical]
The Complete Bible: Why Catholics Have Seven More Books [Ecumenical]
U.S. among most Bible-literate nations: poll
Bible Lovers Not Defined by Denomination, Politics
Dei Verbum (Catholics and the Bible)
Vatican Offers Rich Online Source of Bible Commentary
Clergy Congregation Takes Bible Online
Knowing Mary Through the Bible: Mary's Last Words
A Bible Teaser For You... (for everyone :-)
Knowing Mary Through the Bible: New Wine, New Eve

Return of Devil's Bible to Prague draws crowds
Doctrinal Concordance of the Bible [What Catholics Believe from the Bible] Catholic Caucus
Should We Take the Bible Literally or Figuratively?
Glimpsing Words, Practices, or Beliefs Unique to Catholicism [Bible Trivia]
Catholic and Protestant Bibles: What is the Difference?
Church and the Bible(Caatholic Caucus)
Pope Urges Prayerful Reading of Bible
Catholic Caucus: It's the Church's Bible
How Tradition Gave Us the Bible
The Church or the Bible

44 posted on 12/31/2010 8:02:06 AM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII
Excellent. Using typology (linking the Old Testament with the New Testament) is so powerful.
45 posted on 12/31/2010 8:05:13 AM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

Not real impressed that the Protestant Catholic Luther would think he got his Bible from Rome.


46 posted on 12/31/2010 8:29:23 AM PST by John Leland 1789 (Grateful.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII
THE CANON

Catholicism claims that the church established the canon of Scripture in the fourth century and that therefore the church is the ultimate authority, not Scripture. Roman Catholic apologists often ask, 'If you accept the limits of the Canon that were authoritatively established by the Roman Catholic Church, why do you reject the ultimate authority of that Church?' The simple reason is that the premise upon which that logic rests is fallacious because the specific claims the Church of Rome makes for itself regarding the canon are contradicted by the facts of history. The Roman Catholic Church did not authoritatively establish the limits of the canon for the church. The New Testament books were already recognized in the church prior to the Western councils of Hippo and Carthage in North Africa in the fourth century. These were provincial councils that had no authority for the church universally, and their decrees on the Apocrypha were never accepted in the church as a whole. The church adopted the views of many of the Eastern Fathers such as Origen and Athanasius and Western Fathers such as Jerome. It expressed the view that these writings were useful for reading in the churches for the purpose of edification, but they were not to be counted as part of the canon of inspired Scripture since they were not part of the Hebrew canon. Consequently, they were not to be used for the establishment of doctrine. So the inclusion of additional books in the canon of Scripture by the Roman Catholic Church troubled me. Which visible community had this right? In commenting on the apocryphal books, Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus, Jerome states:

As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it also read these two volumes for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church.... I say this to show how hard it is to master the book of Daniel, which in Hebrew contains neither the history of Susanna, nor the hymn of the three youths, nor the fables of Bel and the Dragon.[ St. Jerome, Prefaces to Jerome's Works, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs, Daniel, Series Two, vol. VI, of Schaff and Wace, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 492-93.]

That the Jewish canon did not include the Apocrypha and that the Protestant Reformers followed the practice of the Jews is affirmed by the New Catholic Encyclopedia: 'For the Old Testament, however, Protestants follow the Jewish canon; they have only the Old Testament books that are in the Hebrew Bible.[ New Catholic Encyclopedia (Washington, D.C.: Catholic Univ., 1967), III:29.] That the church as a whole never accepted the apocryphal books as part of the canon of Scripture after the councils of Carthage and Hippo is seen from these comments by Pope Gregory the Great (A.D. 590-604) on the book of 1 Maccabees:

With reference to which particular we are not acting irregularly, if from the books, though not Canonical, yet brought out for the edification of the Church, we bring forward testimony. Thus Eleazar in the battle smote and brought down an elephant, but fell under the very beast that he killed (1 Macc. 6.46). [Gregory the Great, Morals on the Book of Job, vol. II parts III and IV, Book XIX.34, in A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church, 424. The New Catholic Encyclopedia confirms that Pope Gregory did not accept a canonical status for the Apocrypha (II:390).]

This was the view that was held throughout the ensuing centuries of the history of the church. John Cosin, in his book A Scholastical History of the Canon, documents some fifty-two major ecclesiastical writers and theologians from the eighth to the sixteenth centuries who held to the view of Jerome. That this was the general view of the church up to as late as the sixteenth century is evidenced by these comments from Cardinal Cajetan, the great opponent of Luther in the Reformation, taken from his commentary on the Old Testament:

Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St. Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed among the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned canonical. For the words as well as of councils and of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorized in the canon of the bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clear through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage. [Taken from his comments on the final chapter of Esther, in Commentary on All the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament; cited in William Whitaker, A Disputation on Holy Scripture (Cambridge: University Press, 1849), 48. Cf. John Cosin, A Scholastical History of the Canon (Oxford: Parker, 1849),111:257-58, and B.F. Westcott, A General Survey of the Canon of the New Testament (New York: Macmillan, 1889), 475.]

The New Catholic Encyclopedia affirms that Jerome rejected the Apocrypha as being canonical and that the councils of Carthage and Hippo did not establish the Old Testament canon. It states explicitly that this was not authoritatively done until the Council of Trent:

St. Jerome distinguished between canonical books and ecclesiastical books (the apocrypha). The latter he judged were circulated by the Church as good spiritual reading but were not recognized as authoritative Scripture....The situation remained unclear in the ensuing centuries....According to Catholic doctrine; the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church at the Council of Trent....The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent. [New Catholic Encyclopedia, II:390, III:29]

The first general council of the Western church to dogmatically decree the Apocrypha to be part of the canon and therefore to be accorded the status of Scripture was the Council of Trent in the mid-sixteenth century. This was done contrary to the universal practice of the Jews and the church up to that time. And Trent places under anathema all who reject this teaching. ['If anyone does not accept as sacred and canonical the aforesaid books in their entirety and with all their parts, as they have been accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church and as they are contained in the Old Latin Vulgate Edition, and knowingly and deliberately rejects the aforesaid traditions, let him be anathema' (Fourth Session, Decree Concerning the Canonical Scriptures, of The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent [Rockford: Tan, 1978], 18).] It was the Roman Catholic Church, not the Protestant, which was responsible for the introduction of novel teachings very late in the history of the church. When one examines the related issues of Scripture, tradition, and the canon, the facts reveal that it is the Protestant teaching that is closest to both Scripture and the teaching of the truly historic catholic church.

47 posted on 12/31/2010 8:49:47 AM PST by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John Leland 1789

But don’t be impervious to the truth. Where else would Luther have gotten it from?


48 posted on 12/31/2010 8:51:36 AM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: John Leland 1789

Come on! Luther had been a Catholic priest! Of course he had a Catholic Bible and would say that the Catholics had the gift of the Bible!


49 posted on 12/31/2010 8:52:32 AM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

***The Protestant Old Testament omits seven entire books and parts of two other books.***

Yawn, this old argument again! Anyone who has read the Apocrypha (and every one should read it at least once to see why it is irrelivant) will readily see that these are just pious fictions devoid of any real spiritual guidance, an placing them with the fictional SHEPHERD OF HERMAS and THE APOCALYPSE OF PETER other tall tales is their proper place.

The original 1611 KJV had the Apocrypha as did the Geneva bibles. They have been removed in most KJV printings done in America.

If you want a copy of the KJV with Apocrypha here is a link to the best English KJV bibles in the world, CAMBRIDGE and Oxford.

http://www.bibles-direct.co.uk/products/?c=44

Note: This company has a long term contract to produce hymn books for a certain legalistic sect. Do not order their hymn books.


50 posted on 12/31/2010 9:06:55 AM PST by Ruy Dias de Bivar (I visited GEN TOMMY FRANKS Military Museum in HOBART, OKLAHOMA! Well worth it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-72 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson