Validity of the Septuagint

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

I have run across a few basic stumbling blocks in discussions about the Alexandrian Canon that I am sure some of you regulars can help me with. The idea that the Jews were to be the keepers of the Scripture(O.T.) supports the argument that if the Jews rejected the seven deuterocanonical books, then we should too. Additionally, some anti-Catholics have suggested to me that the reasoning behind rejecting any book written after 400 B.C. had to do with Judaism going through a dark period, which was why Jesus arrived when he did.

Any comments are much appreciated. No need to keep them brief.

-- Peter Humphreys (humphreys@comcast.net), December 08, 2003

Answers

Two points:

It's not clear that the Jews did comprehensively reject the deuterocanonical works. Different groups of Jews had differing canonical lists.

Secondly, to the extent that Jews did reject them, this seems to have happened about a hundred years after Christ. Whatever about the Jews as "keepers of the scripture" up to the time of Christ, from a Christian perspective it is hard to argue that they still had this function after the time of Christ, or that their decisions in regard to the Hebrew canon at that timewere divinely inspired. Certainly there doesn't seem to be a lot of evidence that the Christians of the time felt obliged to accept the views of the Jews on this matter.

It's my impression that the decision to reject the deuterocanonical books was indeed influenced by the fact that the Jews had been going through a rough period. Essentially, the decision was to reject any work not believed to have been originally written in Hebrew, the idea being that books written in Greek were written by people with a Greek education and/or living in a Greek-influenced society, and so were more likely to have been influenced by corrupting Gentile notions.

It's possibly not a coincidence that the decision to reject anything written in Greek automatically excludes anything written at or after the time of Christ. The consequence is to make a clear break between Christianity and Judaism, and thereafter Jewish people accepting the Christian faith could no longer see themselves as Jews; nor could Christianity be seen as a movement within Judaism. The desire to make a definitive stand against Christian ideas may have influenced the decision taken to confine the canon to works written in Hebrew.

-- UDS (twoeight2001@yahoo.com), December 09, 2003.


The discussion as to whether the seven books are valid or not is interesting, but I've yet to see where it points to a difference between us and them.

I don't see where the seven smoking guns contain anything "new" that isn't already revealed in the "commonly accepted" books.

The reference to Maccabees about Pergatory is the usual culprit, but when I read the passage, all it really talks about is that a General, after a great victory in which many of the enemy were slaughtered, went back to his homeland and prayed for their souls. The passage doesn't point to a difference between the Catholic and Protestant faiths. Both faiths commonly pray for the deceased.

The Christian tradition of our Church would be intact with or without the seven books and the Protestant "traditions" would be unchanged with the seven books.

Can anyone point out real reasons for their dismissal in the first place or were they just an act of stubborness on someone's part back in the 1500's.

Someone please show me where I am at fault here, because to me it is much ado about nothing. There are distinct differences between us and the faiths that broke away, but they are simply not caused by the text of these seven books.

There isn't anything in them that Protestants can point to as "faulty" and there isn't anything in them that we depend upon for our Catholic identity.

Simply put the books were an accepted part of our common faith traditions for 1500 years and their dissmisal after that time was based on nothing more than, just trying to be different.

-- Leon (vol@weblink2000.net), December 09, 2003.


"Both faiths commonly pray for the deceased."

A: What would be the point of praying for the deceased if you believe that they must already be in either heaven or hell? Those in heaven need no prayers. Those in hell cannot benefit from prayer.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 09, 2003.


It was at the Jewish "council" of Jamnia in 90 AD or 109 (can't recall now). Jamnia was a major center of Jewish culture after the fall of Jerusalem and the Sanhedrin moved there. It was there that they reacted to the loss of the Temple, priesthood, and nation as well as the rise of Christianity in all parts of the Empire among Jewish communities... using the Septuagint as the spring board for evangelization...

It was also at Jamni that a false prophet or Messiah led the 2nd Jewish revolt against the Romans in 135AD during the reign of Hadrian.

So since this is AFTER CHRISTS TIME, AS WELL AS AFTER THE TEMPLE, it doesn't seem to me that anyone should regard this "council" as authoritative.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), December 09, 2003.


It's not just Protestants or anti-Catholics who question the authority of the apocrypha.

"As the Church reads the books of Judith and Tobit and Maccabees but does not receive them among the canonical Scriptures, so also it reads Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus for the edification of the people, not for the authoritative confirmation of doctrine."

Saint Jerome

Dave

-- non-Catholic Christian (dlbowerman@yahoo.com), December 09, 2003.



Jmj

Leon, you wrote: "The reference to Maccabees about Pergatory is the usual culprit, but when I read the passage, all it really talks about is that a General, after a great victory in which many of the enemy were slaughtered, went back to his homeland and prayed for their souls. The passage doesn't point to a difference between the Catholic and Protestant faiths. Both faiths commonly pray for the deceased."

Oh, but it does "point to a difference." A huge difference. Somehow, even though you used to be a Protestant, you seem to be unaware of the fact that there are hardly any Protestants in the world who "pray for the deceased." I have heard that some "high Church Anglicans" believe in Purgatory (as did the old lexicographer Samuel Johnson -- and maybe C.S. Lewis). [In the future, listen to what Protestants say in their messages of condolence. NEVER do they say, "I will pray for the repose of your husband's soul" or "I will ask my pastor to offer Sunday's service for your wife." Rather, they assume that the deceased is in heaven, and they tell those grieving that "you are in my thoughts and prayers."]

That's what Paul M was trying to say to you above. Since almost all Protestants believe in only Heaven and Hell -- not in Purgatory -- they see no point in praying for the dead. Those in heaven don't need prayers, and those in hell can't benefit from them. As a consequence, the first Protestants didn't want the books of Maccabees and Wisdom, which contain verses supporting a belief in a third post-mortem state for the soul. Luther found a convenient excuse to pitch the seven "deuterocanonical books" in the existence of a Hebrew O.T. canon.

Just now, I deliberately used the phrase "deuterocanonical books" as an introduction to lambasting the anti-Catholic comment posted by ex-Catholic Dave. He has been at the forum for more than four years and must have seen the MANY occasions on which I and others have corrected Protestants' misuse of the term "apocrypha." But, showing no respect for the fact that this is a Catholic forum, he insults us by referring to the deuterocanonicals as "apocrypha." To add insult to injury, he brings up another canard that he must have seen refuted here before -- (I recall refuting it at least once myself) -- the position of St. Jerome. Sad, sad, sad, this poor fallen-away Dave.

On point 1 ... From the time of the Church's "fixing" of the canons (4th century) until the time of the Protestant revolt (16th century), the word "apocrypha" was understood to refer to all those books (of OT and NT times) that failed the Church's tests of canonicity. The real list of "apocrypha," therefore, did NOT contain Judith, Tobit, Sirach, Baruch, Wisdom, and I&II Maccabees -- which had instead been deemed to have been inspired by God and part of the OT canon. It was rebels of the 16th century that, without authority and without valid effect, tried to redefine the contents of the "apocrypha."
On point 2 ... Every learned person of St. Jerome's time had an opinion as to the canonicity of various ancient books. If Dave has provided an accurate quotation, we see part of St. Jerome's opinion above. But his opinion mattered not one whit! While he was a great scholar, translator, and holy man, he was only a priest -- not a bishop. He did not have the right, ability, or duty to judge the deuterocanonicals as "inspired by God" or "uninspired." When the bishops, in union with the pope, made their decision, St. Jerome humbly accepted their decision. Too bad a later priest of no eminence at all -- Fr. Martin Luther -- didn't have the humility to do the same as the great St. Jerome.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 09, 2003.


The only Protestant church I would have any real background with is the Lutheran Church. I think, in the Lutheran faith, it is quite common to pray for the deceased. I know when my Mother died, many prayers were offered for her safe entry to heaven.

We also offered prayers for her to watch over us and protect us.

I guess when I speak of us and them it is usually Catholics and Lutherans, rather than any other, more fringe, protestant denominations. I'm sure you are quite correct about other strains of Protestantism, but Lutherans are fairly "normal" with respect for "Prayers for the deceased" as found in Maccabees.

I guess, I've just heard for too long that the differences between us and them, stem from the seven books. There are very real differences, but the books aren't the source. It seems to me that the real sources require deeper examination.

-- Leon (vol@weblink2000.net), December 10, 2003.


Jmj

Leon, you are one very fortunate man. You appear to have been raised in a very unusual congregation (or synod/denomination) within lutheranism -- one in which a person who dies could be helped by the prayers of his survivors.

It may come as a surprise to you, but this is not a normal belief within the various shades of lutheranism. Instead, because of the Lutheran belief in "sola scriptura," and because of the claim that the existence of only heaven and hell (after death) can be seen in scripture, I believe that there must be hardly any Lutherans who pray for the dead. I called you "very fortunate," because your clergyman must have believed in Purgatory, and this must have helped you with an easier transition into Catholicism than many protestants have.

The following comment by a Lutheran Q-and-A man, which I found on the Internet, is much more typical than your own parish experience:
"The baptized believing Christian has God's promise of eternal salvation. We also have God's promise that nothing sinful or vile will enter his kingdom. Therefore, before we can enter heaven we must be purified and our sinful natures stripped or purged from us once and for all. For Lutherans this purging occurs not in purgatory, but in the process of dying itself. That which is sin in us truly dies, that which has dwelt in Christ truly lives, therefore our hearts must truly be with Christ if we wish to be saved."

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@Hotmail.com), December 11, 2003.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ