[classyT]

But ClassyT,

Again, you have chosen to believe that the particular version of the Bible with 66 books is the correct version.

Elsacarta,

While dissecting my posts ( which always seems to make them seem less intelligent then I originally thought btw; and no comments from the peanut gallery :D),you left out what I considered the most important thing I said:

" But if I have enough faith to believe the God of the universe spoke this world into existance. I don't have too much trouble believing it was no accident how those books were chosen and in what order and how many."

The Bible as most people know it( and the one that is the best selling book of all time) is the one that contains 39 books in the OT and 27 in the NT. I don't know why the other 7 books were eventually not considered inspired by the men who finally agreed upon them. But I do know that the Catholic Bible and my Bible should both contain this verse:

Daniel 2:21 He controls the course of world events; he removes kings and sets up other kings. He gives wisdom to the wise and knowledge to the scholars. (NLT)

Therefore for me, the 66 books that were finally agreed upon as "inspired" was really orchestrated by the Lord himself. He is ultimately in control. Do I have a problem reading other writings such the dead sea scrolls, or even the 7 extra books in the Catholic bible? NO I don't. BUT I do not consider them the word of God.

[JoeT777]

Joe,
I want to discuss what you wrote but first I need a clarification: what does "establish" means to you in this verse?

Establish: to place on a firm or stable foundation or as in to adopt or take a position or to validate (as in to prove) or to bring about a permanency. I would lend more weight to the meaning of ‘establish’ as ‘to ordain’.

That is to say the Law predisposes us to faith, hope and charity. Throughout the New and Old Testaments we find that the ‘Law’ as being somewhat vague, but most always it refers to those ordinances given by Moses and the Prophets. Any long married couple knows that that early in the relationship there are rules by which each spouse must relate too. In domestic affairs it goes something like, “don’t mess with my side of the closet; or I don’t care how long you’ve had it, if it smells like something dead; or “stay out of my Kitchen or I’ll be emboss this ‘no. 10’ skillet on the backside of your head!” I think you get the gist. Years down the road these rules are no longer written or even verbalized, they can be communicated with ‘THE LOOK’. If you’ve been married a few years, I don’t think I need to explain ‘THE LOOK.’ Still many years later, no rules are necessary, none whatsoever, you ‘know’ what your spouse wants, needs, or desires. And it’s at this stage, you start finishing each other sentences, even in the privacy of the home – essentially becoming ONE. The point being that the rules, laws or ordinances found in marriage are same types as those found in the Covenants. Some are Divine, some are prophetic and some are mere preferences all aimed at the good of our relationship with God. When the laws are no longer applicable, or needed, when continued to be enforced they become burdensome, oppressive. It’s these laws Christ perfected, they still exist, and they simply don’t need to be enumerated for or relationship if they are carried in the interior – like the old woman and man. And as Matthew's Gospel (chp. 5) tells us Christ came to perfect the LAW fulfilling every jot.

JoeT

[elscarta]

I don't know why the other 7 books were eventually not considered inspired by the men who finally agreed upon them.

ClassyT,
If you studied the history of the Bible, you would know that the New Testament was set at the Councils of Hippo in 393 AD and Carthage in 397 AD. Also at these Councils the Septuagint was confirmed as the canon of the Old Testament.

The Septuagint is the Old Testament as accepted by Catholics which contains 7 more books that the version that you accept.

It was in the early 1500s that Martin Luther removed the 7 books from their rightful place in the Bible and placed them between the Old and New Testaments and called them "Apocrypha: These Books Are Not Held Equal to the Scriptures, but Are Useful and Good to Read". Later they were removed entirely from some versions of the Bible.

St Paul, in 2 Corinthians 11:3-4 warns about this:

3But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent's cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ. 4For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough.

Martin Luther preached a different scripture to the one that had been accepted by the Church for over 1100 years, and many have been led astray.

He also added the word "alone" to Romans 3:28 which was NOT in any other version of the Bible before his time and which was subsequently removed from the Bible.

And as you have quoted before
Revelations 22:18-19

18I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

[dwashbur]

Establish: to place on a firm or stable foundation or as in to adopt or take a position or to validate (as in to prove) or to bring about a permanency. I would lend more weight to the meaning of ‘establish’ as ‘to ordain’.

That is to say the Law predisposes us to faith, hope and charity. Throughout the New and Old Testaments we find that the ‘Law’ as being somewhat vague, but most always it refers to those ordinances given by Moses and the Prophets. Any long married couple knows that that early in the relationship there are rules by which each spouse must relate too. In domestic affairs it goes something like, “don’t mess with my side of the closet; or I don’t care how long you’ve had it, if it smells like something dead; or “stay out of my Kitchen or I’ll be emboss this ‘no. 10’ skillet on the backside of your head!” I think you get the gist. Years down the road these rules are no longer written or even verbalized, they can be communicated with ‘THE LOOK’. If you’ve been married a few years, I don’t think I need to explain ‘THE LOOK.’ Still many years later, no rules are necessary, none whatsoever, you ‘know’ what your spouse wants, needs, or desires. And it’s at this stage, you start finishing each other sentences, even in the privacy of the home – essentially becoming ONE. The point being that the rules, laws or ordinances found in marriage are same types as those found in the Covenants. Some are Divine, some are prophetic and some are mere preferences all aimed at the good of our relationship with God. When the laws are no longer applicable, or needed, when continued to be enforced they become burdensome, oppressive. It’s these laws Christ perfected, they still exist, and they simply don’t need to be enumerated for or relationship if they are carried in the interior – like the old woman and man. And as Matthew's Gospel (chp. 5) tells us Christ came to perfect the LAW fulfilling every jot.

JoeT

Well, as a redneck mechanic might say, "dat's yer problem right dere." That's not what the term "establish" in the Greek text means. To understand it we have to go back to verses 19-20:

"Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin." (NIV)

The purpose of the Law, Paul says, was never to save or to make someone righteous. It was to show us how impossible it is and drive us to throw ourselves on the mercy of God. Paul continues:

"21 But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus." (NIV)

He elaborates on this same idea in Galatians when he says that the law was our schoolmaster, so to speak, that was meant to lead us to Christ (Gal 3:24).

Paul continues in Romans 3:

"27 Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith. 28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. 29 Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, 30 since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. 31 Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law." (NIV)

Note the translation "uphold" rather than "establish." It's much closer to the meaning of the original, which basically means "confirm," or, if we must use the term "establish," it's more like "establish as having filled its purpose." What does that mean? Paul has already told us: its purpose was to show us our sinfulness so that we would be driven to Christ, seeking the mercy of God and forgiveness in spite of our sins. For this reason, nobody can boast that they're righteous or that they keep the law, because nobody can do it. Salvation comes by faith, not by keeping the law. The law was never meant for that; its purpose was to show us that we need a savior. That's the essence of Romans 3, and the reason that we know Paul wasn't using hyperbole when he said that there is nobody righteous and that all have sinned. It's easy to take a verse out of context, like verse 10, and try to claim it's hyperbole, but when we put it in the context of the entire chapter, he means exactly what he's saying. "Establishing" the law is coming to Christ by faith because the law has shown us our sinfulness.

[classyT]

ClassyT,
if you studied the history of the Bible, you would know that the New Testament was set at the Councils of Hippo in 393 AD and Carthage in 397 AD the canon of the New Testament was set. Also at these Councils the Septuagint was confirmed as the canon of the Old Testament.

The Septuagint is the Old Testament as accepted by Catholics which contains 7 more books that the version that you accept.

It was in the early 1500s that Martin Luther removed the 7 books from their rightful place in the Bible and placed them between the Old and New Testaments and called them "Apocrypha: These Books Are Not Held Equal to the Scriptures, but Are Useful and Good to Read". Later they were removed entirely from some versions of the Bible.

St Paul, in 2 Corinthians 11:3-4 warns about this:

3But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent's cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ. 4For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough.

Martin Luther preached a different scripture to the one that had been accepted by the Church for over 1100 years, and many have been led astray.

He also added the word "alone" to Romans 3:28 which was NOT in any other version of the Bible before his time and which was subsequently removed from the Bible.

And as you have quoted before
Revelations 22:18-19

18I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

Elscarta,

I'm not even going to try to argue Martin Luther.. I don't know enough about him. IF he did add the word alone... it is NOT in there now.

However I did check out the words of the Apostle Paul very closely : Did he preach a different Jesus? Nope!. did he preach a different Spirit!. nope! Did he preach a different gospel than the Apostle PAUL? No way!!


I am out of my element talking about church history and Martin Luther. However, if what you say is true and he did add the word "alone" to the verse it has since been removed. The seven books were also removed. By whom? Men?. Martin Luther? Or God? I tend to believe God. It is called faith.. for without faith it is impossible to please God.

Daniel 2:21 :He controls the course of world events; he removes kings and sets up other kings. He gives wisdom to the wise and knowledge to the scholars

[Wondergirl]

Establishing" the law is coming to Christ by faith because the law has shown us our sinfulness.

As my minister father taught as a mnemonic --

Law = SOS = show's oyour sin

Gospel = SOS = show's oyour Savior

[dwashbur]

ClassyT,
if you studied the history of the Bible, you would know that the New Testament was set at the Councils of Hippo in 393 AD and Carthage in 397 AD the canon of the New Testament was set. Also at these Councils the Septuagint was confirmed as the canon of the Old Testament.

The Septuagint is the Old Testament as accepted by Catholics which contains 7 more books that the version that you accept.

[snip]

The Septuagint is NOT the Old Testament; the councils were wrong in that decision. The Old Testament is the Hebrew text, not a third-century BC Greek translation that is horribly variable in its accuracy. If the Septuagint is the Catholic OT, they have a BIG problem.

[arcura]

ALL of the previous post have been very interesting to me, including those which mention different bibles, the first for centuries with 72 books and the one that came out after the reformation with fewer books.
In my case I prefer the complete bible.
And yes Joe you are right about who was sinless.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[dwashbur]

ALL of the previous post have been very interesting to me, including those which mention different bibles, the first for centuries with 72 books and the one that came out after the reformation with fewer books.
In my case I prefer the complete bible.

Did you even read what I wrote? The "complete" Bible as regards the Old Testament is the one written in Hebrew, which does NOT include the "extra" books found in the Septuagint.

For those scratching their heads, the "Septuagint" (often abbreviated LXX, the roman numeral 70) is a translation of the Old Testament into Greek that was made over a period of about 200 years during the time between the Testaments. The Old Testament was written in Hebrew, with a few small parts in Aramaic. Supposedly, the translation was made by 70 scribes, each translating in a separate room, and when their translations were compared they all agreed exactly, word for word. This was supposed to be proof that the translation they produced was inspired by God. All this is detailed in an ancient document called the Letter of Aristeas, written around the time that the translation was made. Unfortunately, it has long been known that the Letter of Aristeas is fraudulent; it was written several centuries after the translation was made, apparently with the aim of "proving" that the Septuagint was more "inspired" than the actual Hebrew text. Obviously, some church councils bought the lie.

The actual truth is that the "Septuagint" is a collection of translations of Old Testament books, made by various people at various times, and of various quality; some translators knew Greek better than others. The translation of some of the 12 prophets, for example, is horrible and barely comprehensible. The translation of Jeremiah is about 30% shorter than the Hebrew text and omits large sections of what Jeremiah actually wrote. And, of course, those 7 extra books were collected along with the actual canonical books of the Hebrew Bible. Several of them are unknown in Hebrew, and only known in the Septuagint translation, so we have no clue how accurate they are. The Greek Old Testament itself was revised several times between when first appeared and the time of Jesus, so which Septuagint was accepted by the church councils is open to question. So arcura's "complete bible" is a little too "complete," because it is not only based on a faulty translation of the actual Old Testament, but includes extra stuff that was never part of the Hebrew canon of Scripture.

I notice nobody has said WHY those church councils adopted the Septuagint as their Old Testament...

[JoeT777]

Well, as a redneck mechanic might say, "dat's yer problem right dere." That's not what the term "establish" in the Greek text means. To understand it we have to go back to verses 19-20:

"Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin." (NIV)

The purpose of the Law, Paul says, was never to save or to make someone righteous. It was to show us how impossible it is and drive us to throw ourselves on the mercy of God. Paul continues:

"21 But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus." (NIV)

He elaborates on this same idea in Galatians when he says that the law was our schoolmaster, so to speak, that was meant to lead us to Christ (Gal 3:24).

Paul continues in Romans 3:

"27 Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith. 28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. 29 Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, 30 since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. 31 Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law." (NIV)

Note the translation "uphold" rather than "establish." It's much closer to the meaning of the original, which basically means "confirm," or, if we must use the term "establish," it's more like "establish as having filled its purpose." What does that mean? Paul has already told us: its purpose was to show us our sinfulness so that we would be driven to Christ, seeking the mercy of God and forgiveness in spite of our sins. For this reason, nobody can boast that they're righteous or that they keep the law, because nobody can do it. Salvation comes by faith, not by keeping the law. The law was never meant for that; its purpose was to show us that we need a savior. That's the essence of Romans 3, and the reason that we know Paul wasn't using hyperbole when he said that there is nobody righteous and that all have sinned. It's easy to take a verse out of context, like verse 10, and try to claim it's hyperbole, but when we put it in the context of the entire chapter, he means exactly what he's saying. "Establishing" the law is coming to Christ by faith because the law has shown us our sinfulness.

The law is a part of the Covenant which is perfected in Christ. St. John C. points out that Paul teaches that justification is possible through the Law, that the Law cannot produce the result of justification, and that faith is not opposed to the Law. The Catechism teaches much the same thing; that the Law is a teacher, exercising our awareness to desire for righteousness.

“This divine pedagogy appears especially in the gift of the Law. (Cf. Ex 19; 20, Deut 1-11; 29-30). God gave the letter of the Law as a ‘pedagogue’ [I’m told that ‘pedagogue’ is a Latin derivative of paedagōgus – to watch over children, a teacher or schoolmaster] to lead his people towards Christ. (Gal 3:24) But the Law's powerlessness to save man deprived of the divine "likeness," along with the growing awareness of sin that it imparts (Rom 3:20), enkindles a desire for the Holy Spirit. The lamentations of the Psalms bear witness to this. (CCC 708)

Maybe I opted not to present this because of the ‘Greek.’ I’m not versed in Greek, and can’t argue one way or the other. St. Chrysostom presents the argument much the same way as I did (without the Greek of course – and without so much rambling).

Do you see his varied and unspeakable judgment? For the bare use of the word establish shows that it was not then standing, but was worn out (καταλελυμένον). And note also Paul's exceeding power, and how superabundantly he maintains what he wishes. For here he shows that the faith, so far from doing any disparagement to the Law, even assists it, as it on the other hand paved the way for the faith. For as the Law itself before bore witness to it (for he says, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets), so here this establishes that, now that it is unnerved. And how did it establish? He would say. What was the object of the Law and what the scope of all its enactments? Why, to make man righteous. But this it had no power to do. For all, it says, have sinned: but faith when it came accomplished it. For when a man is once a believer, he is straightway justified. The intention then of the Law it did establish, and what all its enactments aim after, this has it brought to a consummation. Consequently it has not disannulled, but perfected it. Here then three points he has demonstrated; first, that without the Law it is possible to be justified; next, that this the Law could not effect; and, that faith is not opposed to the Law. For since the chief cause of perplexity to the Jews was this, that the faith seemed to be in opposition to it, he shows more than the Jew wishes, that so far from being contrary, it is even in close alliance and cooperation with it, which was what they especially longed to hear proved. St. John Chrysostom, on Romans, Homily 7, Ver. 31, (CHURCH FATHERS: Homily 7 on Romans (Chrysostom))

Either way, aren’t we saying the same thing? Maybe that’s the problem; your mechanic overcharged you for an oil leak that didn’t exist.

JoeT

[JoeT777]

The Septuagint is NOT the Old Testament; the councils were wrong in that decision. The Old Testament is the Hebrew text, not a third-century BC Greek translation that is horribly variable in its accuracy. If the Septuagint is the Catholic OT, they have a BIG problem.

You might want to explain how little-ol you know better than the Church councils. Isn’t this a bit presumptuous? There were about 4 or 5 versions that the council considered. But, I’ve got to get some sleep and it’s getting late. Chew on this for awhile; it’s actually a pretty good article.

The importance of the Septuagint Version is shown by the following considerations:

(1) The Septuagint is the most ancient translation of the Old Testament and consequently is invaluable to critics for understanding and correcting the Hebrew text (Massorah), the latter, such as it has come down to us, being the text established by the Massoretes in the sixth century A.D. Many textual corruptions, additions, omissions, or transpositions must have crept into the Hebrew text between the third and second centuries B.C. and the sixth and seventh centuries of our era; the manuscripts therefore which the Seventy had at their disposal, may in places have been better than the Massoretic manuscripts.

(2) The Septuagint Version accepted first by the Alexandrian Jews, and afterwards by all the Greek-speaking countries, helped to spread among the Gentiles the idea and the expectation of the Messias, and to introduce into Greek the theological terminology that made it a most suitable instrument for the propagation of the Gospel of Christ.

(3) The Jews made use of it long before the Christian Era, and in the time of Christ it was recognised as a legitimate text, and was employed in Palestine even by the rabbis. The Apostles and Evangelists utilised it also and borrowed Old Testament citations from it, especially in regard to the prophecies. The Fathers and the other ecclesiastical writers of the early Church drew upon it, either directly, as in the case of the Greek Fathers, or indirectly, like the Latin Fathers and writers and others who employed Latin, Syriac, Ethiopian, Arabic and Gothic versions. It was held in high esteem by all, some even believed it inspired. Consequently, a knowledge of the Septuagint helps to a perfect understanding of these literatures.

(4) At the present time, the Septuagint is the official text in the Greek Church, and the ancient Latin Versions used in the western church were made from it; the earliest translation adopted in the Latin Church, the Vetus Itala, was directly from the Septuagint: the meanings adopted in it, the Greek names and words employed (such as: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers [Arithmoi], Deuteronomy), and finally, the pronunciation given to the Hebrew text, passed very frequently into the Itala, and from it, at times, into the Vulgate, which not rarely gives signs of the influence of the Vetus Itala; this is especially so in the Psalms, the Vulgate translation being merely the Vetus Itala corrected by St. Jerome according to the hexaplar text of the Septuagint. CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Septuagint Version

You might want to the read further.

JoeT

[arcura]

dwashbur,
Yes I read what to said.
I also know that the boos of the Septuagint were used for centuries by Jews outside of Israel. The reason for those in Israel not using them was because some of them treated Rome nicely.
So you see that there WERE many Jews who used them and some still do.
As for why The Church chose to include them in the Cannon was because it felt that they were inspired.
Did you know that the New Testament has some quotes from the Septuagint?
Don't ask me what they are because I have forgotten.
I find that reading them is educational and of spiritual value.
Give it a try.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[elscarta]

And, of course, those 7 extra books were collected along with the actual canonical books of the Hebrew Bible.

Exactly when did the Jews state what the actual canonical books of the Hebrew Bible are?

[elscarta]

No. I posted two different uses, two ways the word can be understood -- .

Two different uses, two different ways to understand the word, two different meanings, two different definitions.

These are all saying basically the same thing!!

Def·i·ni·tion (df-nshn)
A statement of the meaning of a word, phrase, or term, as in a dictionary entry.

Again, instead of answering my question you seem to be deliberately trying to avoid answering it by once again nitpicking at the differences between how you would say something to how I say it.

Rephrasing my original question once more.

Could you explain how "There is no one who does good" means the same thing as "there is no one righteous" according to second of the two ways that the word "righteous" can be understood, as you posted in an earlier post!

[dwashbur]

Exactly when did the Jews state what the actual canonical books of the Hebrew Bible are?

The Dead Sea Scrolls give us some good hints, but they established it for sure at the Council of Jamnia near the end of the first century AD. However, their tradition of the canon goes back much further. Those other 7 books were all written during the period between the testaments, which the Jews call the 400 Silent Years. They call it that because there were no prophets during that time; their canon closed with Malachi.

Yes I read what to said.
I also know that the boos of the Septuagint were used for centuries by Jews outside of Israel.

Yes, obviously. Also irrelevant. It was made for Jews outside Israel who could no longer read Hebrew. The same situation exists today with our English translations, but with rare (and usually laughable) exceptions I don't see anybody trying to claim any of those English translations is inspired or authoritative.

The reason for those in Israel not using them was because some of them treated Rome nicely.

I have no idea what this means.

So you see that there WERE many Jews who used them and some still do.

Still irrelevant. When you ask them what the inspired scriptures are they point to the Hebrew, as well they should.

As for why The Church chose to include them in the Cannon was because it felt that they were inspired.

That's not the question. The question is, why did they go with the Septuagint? And I think we all know the answer, though nobody wants to come out and say it: antisemitism.

Did you know that the New Testament has some quotes from the Septuagint?

Having not only done extensive research on the subject but also written on it, yes, I know that. I also know that they are rare, and that there's an equal number that represent the Hebrew text even when it diverges from the Septuagint. A good resource on this subject is Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament: A Complete Survey by Gregory Chirichigno and Gleason Archer. It has the Greek text of the New Testament, the Septuagint and the Hebrew text of the Old Testament in parallel columns for quick and careful comparison. There's also Paul's Use of the Old Testament by E. Earle Ellis which is more analytical, but confines itself to Paul's writings (obviously).

Don't ask me what they are because I have forgotten.
I find that reading them is educational and of spiritual value.
Give it a try.

I have. Why would you assume otherwise?

You might want to explain how little-ol you know better than the Church councils. Isn’t this a bit presumptuous?

What makes you think it's just me? The vast majority of textual critics have come to this conclusion. Even Ralph W. Klein, in his book Textual Criticism of the Old Testament: the Septuagint After Qumran, who clearly would prefer to go with the Septuagint, had to admit that the evidence points to the Septuagint as a secondary source, reliable in places but obviously unreliable in others, and that the Hebrew text is the one closest to the original Old Testament. The evidence is well summarized in two of the most prominent books on the subject: The Text of the Old Testament: An Introduction to the Biblia Hebraica by Ernst Würthwein , which is a little older, and the current magnum opus, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible by Emanuel Tov .

It's hardly "little ol'" me; I stand on the shoulders of giants.

From your citation:

The Septuagint is the most ancient translation of the Old Testament and consequently is invaluable to critics for understanding and correcting the Hebrew text (Massorah), the latter, such as it has come down to us, being the text established by the Massoretes in the sixth century A.D. Many textual corruptions, additions, omissions, or transpositions must have crept into the Hebrew text between the third and second centuries B.C. and the sixth and seventh centuries of our era; the manuscripts therefore which the Seventy had at their disposal, may in places have been better than the Massoretic manuscripts.

This is horribly outdated. Yes, the Septuagint is one of the oldest translations we have. But the manuscripts we have are no earlier than the fourth or fifth century AD, which puts them right there with the Hebrew manuscripts. I just love the phrase "must have crept into the Hebrew text" as justification, because it's nothing more than an unfounded assumption. And we now know it's not true, thanks to the Dead Sea Scrolls. The scrolls show us that the Masoretic text-form was alive and well and remarkably well preserved clear back to the time of Christ and beyond. Places where they align with the Septuagint against the Hebrew text are amazingly rare. If you want to check this out for yourself, see my book A Catalog of Biblical Passages in the Dead Sea Scrolls (Text-Critical Studies, V. 2) by David L. Washburn . I combed through every biblical citation, both in the biblical and non-biblical scrolls, to see how the textual alignments shake out. The only books in which the scrolls appear to support the Septuagint over the Hebrew text are the books of Samuel, and we already knew that there are major problems with the Hebrew of those books. So that was nothing new. There are virtually no Septuagint manuscripts among the scrolls; in fact, there's a Greek scroll of the minor prophets, 8Hev XIIgr, that is a literal Greek translation of the Masoretic text-form, even where the Hebrew diverges from the Septuagint.

I just love the reference to "the Seventy" because that was debunked centuries ago. I also wonder why they don't assume that the same kinds of corruptions etc. "must have" crept into the Septuagint between the second century BC and the fourth century AD (our earliest manuscript, Codex Sinaiticus) just like they "must have" crept into the Hebrew text.

Since all this evidence predates the Septuagint manuscripts we have by several centuries, your article needs some serious updating. And somebody needs to seriously re-examine their blind faith in the Septuagint, because the evidence points elsewhere.

You might want to the read further.

Speak for yourself, my friend. If you expand your reading beyond the Catholic Encyclopedia (the only source I've seen you cite to date) you might be surprised.

[arcura]

Extremely interesting.
Thanks,
Fred

[elscarta]

Dwashbur,
Firstly to clarify a point. It is the books of the Septuagint that the RCC holds as inspired, not the particular translation, but which books were in it. St Jerome's translation, the Latin Vulgate, forms the basis of the modern Catholic Bible and it was translated from the Masoretic Text for those books that exist in the Masoretic Text, otherwise he used the Septuagint.

The Dead Sea Scrolls give us some good hints, but they established it for sure at the Council of Jamnia near the end of the first century AD. However, their tradition of the canon goes back much further. Those other 7 books were all written during the period between the testaments, which the Jews call the 400 Silent Years. They call it that because there were no prophets during that time; their canon closed with Malachi.

According to The Oxford Companion to Archaeology:

The biblical manuscripts from Qumran, which include at least fragments from every book of the Old Testament, except perhaps for the Book of Esther, provide a far older cross section of scriptural tradition than that available to scholars before. While some of the Qumran biblical manuscripts are nearly identical to the Masoretic, or traditional, Hebrew text of the Old Testament, some manuscripts of the books of Exodus and Samuel found in Cave Four exhibit dramatic differences in both language and content. In their astonishing range of textual variants, the Qumran biblical discoveries have prompted scholars to reconsider the once-accepted theories of the development of the modern biblical text from only three manuscript families: of the Masoretic text, of the Hebrew original of the Septuagint, and of the Samaritan Pentateuch. It is now becoming increasingly clear that the Old Testament scripture was extremely fluid until its canonization around A.D. 100

The question is, why did they go with the Septuagint? And I think we all know the answer, though nobody wants to come out and say it: antisemitism.

With regards to the Deuterocanonical Books:

"Their acceptance among early Christians was widespread, though not universal, and the Bible of the early Church always included, with varying degrees of recognition, the books now called deuterocanonical." J.N.D. Kelly, "Early Christian Doctrines", p.53

"For the most part their canonicity seems not to have been doubted in the Church until it was challenged by the Jews after A.D. 100." Stuart G. Hall, "Doctrine and Practice in the Early Church", p.28

The reality is that the early Christians were using the Septuagint which included the Deuterocanonical Books because that was the Greek translation that was around at the time, not because it was antisemitic, after all they were writing the New Testament in Greek, and so it would be natural to use the Greek version of the Old Testament.

The real question is whether around 100 AD, when the Jews finally closed their canon, were they inspired by God to do so or were they motivated by some other reason?

[dwashbur]

Dwashbur,
Firstly to clarify a point. It is the books of the Septuagint that the RCC holds as inspired, not the particular translation, but which books were in it. St Jerome's translation, the Latin Vulgate, forms the basis of the modern Catholic Bible and it was translated from the Masoretic Text for those books that exist in the Masoretic Text, otherwise he used the Septuagint.

Interesting. On the other side there's this well-referenced summary from wikipedia:

Michael Barber asserts that, although Jerome was once suspicious of the apocrypha, he later viewed them as Scripture. Barber argues that this is clear from Jerome's epistles. As an example, Barber cites Jerome's letter to Eustochium, in which Jerome quotes Sirach 13:2. [4], elsewhere Jerome also refers to Baruch, the Story of Susannah and Wisdom as scripture.[12][13][14]

Jerome expressed some uneasiness about the authority of the Apocrypha. He was in general agreement with the Jewish position and separated the extra books found in the Septuagint, which he admitted could be edifying, from the Jewish canon.

In his prologues, Jerome argued for Veritas Hebraica, meaning the truth of the Hebrew text over the Septuagint and Old Latin translations. His Preface to The Books of Samuel and Kings[15] includes the following statement, commonly called the Helmeted Preface:
“ This preface to the Scriptures may serve as a “helmeted” introduction to all the books which we turn from Hebrew into Latin, so that we may be assured that what is not found in our list must be placed amongst the Apocryphal writings. Wisdom, therefore, which generally bears the name of Solomon, and the book of Jesus, the Son of Sirach, and Judith, and Tobias, and the Shepherd are not in the canon. The first book of Maccabees I have found to be Hebrew, the second is Greek, as can be proved from the very style. ”

At the request of two bishops,[16] however, he made translations of Tobit and Judith from Hebrew texts[17], which he made clear in his prologues he considered apocryphal. In addition to these, the Vulgate Old Testament included books outside of the 24, many from the Vetus Latina, which Jerome did not translate anew.

The article goes on to note that Jerome's view lost out to that of Augustine, who insisted that the Septuagint was the right canon. I guess you pays your money and you takes your pick.

According to The Oxford Companion to Archaeology:

The biblical manuscripts from Qumran, which include at least fragments from every book of the Old Testament, except perhaps for the Book of Esther, provide a far older cross section of scriptural tradition than that available to scholars before. While some of the Qumran biblical manuscripts are nearly identical to the Masoretic, or traditional, Hebrew text of the Old Testament, some manuscripts of the books of Exodus and Samuel found in Cave Four exhibit dramatic differences in both language and content. In their astonishing range of textual variants, the Qumran biblical discoveries have prompted scholars to reconsider the once-accepted theories of the development of the modern biblical text from only three manuscript families: of the Masoretic text, of the Hebrew original of the Septuagint, and of the Samaritan Pentateuch. It is now becoming increasingly clear that the Old Testament scripture was extremely fluid until its canonization around A.D. 100

Nothing like a bit of over-simplification, eh? Check out the two books I already mentioned, they'll give you more and better information. A few manuscripts of Exodus align with the Samaritan Pentateuch, but once again as I already mentioned, that happens in places where we knew there were problems with the Masoretic text already and had the Samaritan for comparison. Ditto for the Septuagint in the books of Samuel. Moreover, the material in this article really does nothing to help establish any primacy for the Septuagint, canon or otherwise. And again, if you want to check out the situation for yourself, pick up my book. It's published by the Society of Biblical Literature and can be found by poking around their site, Society of Biblical Literature

We've gotten a little far afield of the original questions, so I'll leave it at that. The Jews' canon was actually closed long before AD 100; all they did around that time was make it official. The quotes you cited seem to suggest they had all these other books floating around and weren't sure if they were inspired or not; that is most definitely not the case.

[arcura]

Ll this is very interesting to me.
But I still like those "extra" books to be in my bible for they do offer some spirituality and wisdom.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[JoeT777]

That's not the question. The question is, why did they go with the Septuagint? And I think we all know the answer, though nobody wants to come out and say it: anti-Semitism.

I don’t doubt that there was some form of anti-Semitism at play. Don’t forget, Acts, and Paul’s Epistles are complete with examples Jewish reaction to the new ‘Christian’ sect of Jews. The Jews didn’t like Christians reading and expounding on scripture in ‘their’ Synagogues. You might say the Jews ‘hastened’ the split between Christianity and Judaism. I see this as, you might say, soft anti-Semitism in that the Christians preferred separation; I can’t believe that a Christian community willing to allow themselves to be martyred were ‘aggressive’ enough to force the Jews into a new and improved Septuagint in a 3,000 year old dead language.

But the Septuagint was in great demand by Greek speaking Jews for centuries before Christ. Much of Israel had inclined hard toward the Greek culture. It wasn’t till the fall of the Temple in 70 A.D. do we see a rabbinical resurgence for all things Hebrew such as the Massorah (sp?). I’ve read that many of the Hebrew versions of the Bible are dated to 1,000 A.D; no doubt there was a continued culture of maintaining Hebrew Scripture. The Qumran findings can’t be taken as scripture widely in use in Christ’s time. And if they were, we don’t know if Christ preferred the Massorah over the Septuagint. Also, without credible new findings that would substantiate that the Qumran findings aren’t little more than dumping grounds for sacred text. What I’m trying to convey is that too much weight may be placed on the finding of Qumran to as a means to investigate the culture of zero A.D.

The article goes on to note that Jerome's view lost out to that of Augustine, who insisted that the Septuagint was the right canon. I guess you pays your money and you takes your pick.

Did I misunderstand something, I thought Jerome preferred the Hebrew Scripture, but was ‘commissioned’ to us the Greek text, because many of the scholars (Greek and Latin) of the day were translating the Greek to Latin and the Pope wanted some uniformity. Is that your understanding or did I get something backwards?

The literary activity of St. Jerome, …

A first period extends to his sojourn in Rome (382), a period of preparation. From this period we have the translation of the homilies of Origen on Jeremias, Ezechiel, and Isaias (379-81), and about the same time the translation of the Chronicle of Eusebius; then the "Vita S. Pauli, prima eremitae" (374-379).

A second period extends from his sojourn in Rome to the beginning of the translation of the Old Testament from the Hebrew (382-390). During this period the exegetical vocation of St. Jerome asserted itself under the influence of Pope Damasus, and took definite shape when the opposition of the ecclesiastics of Rome compelled the caustic Dalmatian to renounce ecclesiastical advancement and retire to Bethlehem. In 384 we have the correction of the Latin version of the Four Gospels; in 385, the Epistles of St. Paul; in 384, a first revision of the Latin Psalms according to the accepted text of the Septuagint (Roman Psalter); in 384, the revision of the Latin version of the Book of Job, after the accepted version of the Septuagint; between 386 and 391 a second revision of the Latin Psalter, this time according to the text of the "Hexapla" of Origen (Gallican Psalter, embodied in the Vulgate). It is doubtful whether he revised the entire version of the Old Testament according to the Greek of the Septuagint. In 382-383 "Altercatio Luciferiani et Orthodoxi" and "De perpetua Virginitate B. Mariae; adversus Helvidium". In 387-388, commentaries on the Epistles to Philemon, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to Titus; and in 389-390, on Ecclesiastes.

... In 392-93, "De viris illustribus", and "Adversus Jovinianum"; in 395, commentaries on Jonas and Abdias; in 398, revision of the remainder of the Latin version of the New Testament, and about that time commentaries on chapters 13-23 of Isaias; in 398, an unfinished work "Contra Joannem Hierosolymitanum"; in 401, "Apologeticum adversus Rufinum"; between 403-406, "Contra Vigilantium"; finally from 398 to 405, completion of the version of the Old Testament according to the Hebrew.

In the last period of his life, from 405 to 420, … he commented on Osee, Joel, Amos, Zacharias, Malachias; in 408, on Daniel; from 408 to 410, on the remainder of Isaias; from 410 to 415, on Ezechiel; from 415-420, on Jeremias. From 401 to 410 date what is left of his sermons; treatises on St. Mark, homilies on the Psalms, on various subjects, and on the Gospels; in 415, "Dialogi contra Pelagianos".
(APA citation. Saltet, L. (1910). St. Jerome. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved April 26, 2010 from New Advent: CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: St. Jerome)

JoeT