Missing pages from one's bible

[Xeno.of.athens]

"It's a mystery "

And honest answer!

Most rewarding.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Why did Jerome question the canonicity of those texts?

Jerome questioned because the Rabbinic Jews of his time did. He'd decided to follow Jewish traditions partly because he did not know that the claims made about the Jewish traditions were not true and partly out of respect of the Jewish rabbis who taught him to read and write Hebrew.

The reason is the same, they do not all appear universally within LXX manuscripts

But they do appear universally in all complete LXX manuscripts from the early centuries of the Christian era and also in ancient Latin manuscripts.

 

[JSRG]

As I mentioned already, the claim that "the LXX accept" those texts is not accurate. Why did Jerome question the canonicity of those texts? The reason is the same, they do not all appear universally within LXX manuscripts, there is no single manuscript of the LXX that contains them all, and every combination of them The issue lies entirely with the LXX.

Codex Sinaiticus has all of them, and it's either the oldest or second-oldest full LXX manuscript we have.

The other candidate for oldest is Codex Vaticanus. Unfortunately, our copy of it is incomplete, so we can't judge it for certain. It has all of the Catholic deuterocanon except Maccabees, but it is possible that it was included in a portion we don't have.

 

[Fervent]

Codex Sinaiticus has all of them, and it's either the oldest or second-oldest full LXX manuscript we have.

The other candidate for oldest is Codex Vaticanus. Unfortunately, our copy of it is incomplete, so we can't judge it for certain. It has all of the Catholic deuterocanon except Maccabees, but it is possible that it was included in a portion we don't have.

Codex sinaiticus is not an LXX manuscript, but a compilation of the LXX and NT. What I'm referring to is the independent LXX codices rather than the later compiled ones. There's a revisionist tendency to treat the LXX as a unified corpus, but it was in fact a corpus mixtum and no pre-Christian LXX codices contain the same apocrypha. So while the codex sinaiticus is of interest to the discussion, it is not a counter example to what I have stated.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

independent LXX codices

Which ones, be specific.

 

[Fervent]

Jerome questioned because the Rabbinic Jews of his time did. He'd decided to follow Jewish traditions partly because he did not know that the claims made about the Jewish traditions were not true and partly out of respect of the Jewish rabbis who taught him to read and write Hebrew.

But they do appear universally in all complete LXX manuscripts from the early centuries of the Christian era and also in ancient Latin manuscripts.

The Jewish objections were only a part of Jerome's objections, and were simply things that he made a note of rrather than actually raising as objections. Jerome's tiered view of the canon, however, was not based on Jewish objections but on the lack of attestation in the Greek manuscripts and the lack of direct quotation by NT authors. Ancient latin manuscripts have no bearing on the issue, and qualifying LXX manuscripts as "complete" is revisionist since they represent a later trend of compilation rather than the state of the LXX collections which is in question. Luther's objections, and the manuscript tradition that arose among protestants is nothing more than a continuation of challenging books that had weak support to begin with.

 

[BNR32FAN]

There are exactly seven books and portions of two more (Daniel and Esther) that are included in my Catholic bibles and are missing from a 66-book bible. And since all of those are canonical the question of alleged errors falls in the same category as alleged errors in the 66 books one finds in a 66-book bible.

Yes this sounds like the additional apocryphal books that were included in the Septuagint.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Yes this sounds like the additional apocryphal books that were included in the Septuagint.

The books were neither additional nor apocryphal in the first several centuries AD. It is only through Protestant presumptions that either word can be used with reference to them. The books were "holy scripture" neither more nor less. It took many centuries for Protestant Christian groups to arise and then decide that they were to be rejected.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Jerome's tiered view of the canon, however, was not based on Jewish objections but on the lack of attestation in the Greek manuscripts

Which Greek manuscripts? Be specific, name them, show them from online sources if such sources exist.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I'm not Catholic so it doesn't apply to me. I do have a Bible that contains these books but I haven't read them. I have more than enough material to cover in the 66 books. I haven't gotten around to reading the book of Enoch yet either, but I don't think I'm suffering because of it.

Just my personal opinion but I prefer not to read Enoch or the other apocryphal books because I worry that I might confuse some of the information with these books with scripture. I started reading Enoch and stopped because I was worried that I might confuse some of messages in Enoch with Genesis. This is just my personal opinion because I wanted to make sure that when I quote the scriptures I’m quoting from the inspired word of God and not mistakenly from apocryphal books.

 

[Fervent]

Which ones, be specific.

I suppose I set myself up for this one by playing loose with "codices," as we don't have extant copies of the codices, instead needing to rely on evidence from the ECF to determine available material which shows no uniformity until Origen's hexapla which somewhat created the myth of the LXX to begin with.

 

[JSRG]

Codex sinaiticus is not an LXX manuscript, but a compilation of the LXX and NT. What I'm referring to is the independent LXX codices rather than the later compiled ones. There's a revisionist tendency to treat the LXX as a unified corpus, but it was in fact a corpus mixtum and no pre-Christian LXX codices contain the same apocrypha. So while the codex sinaiticus is of interest to the discussion, it is not a counter example to what I have stated.

No pre-Christian LXX codices contain the same apocrypha? What is your evidence for that? If by "codices" you mean a collection of different books, there are (as far as I am aware) zero surviving pre-Christian LXX codices, so I'm not sure how you were able to determine this fact. All we have are a few isolated fragments from a few LXX books.

 

[BNR32FAN]

The books were neither additional nor apocryphal in the first several centuries AD. It is only through Protestant presumptions that either word can be used with reference to them. The books were "holy scripture" neither more nor less. It took many centuries for Protestant Christian groups to arise and then decide that they were to be rejected.

But they don’t match the Masoretic Text which predated the Septuagint. The Septuagint was composed 3rd century BC. The Masoretic Text dates back to 7th-10th century BC.

 

[Fervent]

No pre-Christian LXX codices contain the same apocrypha? What is your evidence for that? If by "codices" you mean a collection of different books, there are (as far as I am aware) zero surviving pre-Christian LXX codices, so I'm not sure how you were able to determine this fact. All we have are a few isolated fragments from a few LXX books.

Yes, you're right I was playing a little loose with the terms for convenience sake. More what I am speaking to is the myth of the LXX to begin with, and a distinct lack of uniform attestation among the early commenters particularly around the Marcionite controversy.

 

[Servus]

Just my personal opinion but I prefer not to read Enoch or the other apocryphal books because I worry that I might confuse some of the information with these books with scripture. I started reading Enoch and stopped because I was worried that I might confuse some of messages in Enoch with Genesis. This is just my personal opinion because I wanted to make sure that when I quote the scriptures I’m quoting from the inspired word of God and not mistakenly from apocryphal books.

For me another thing is what I have read of the apocrypha, does not sound or feel like the rest of scripture to me. Enoch for instance doesn't mesh with Genesis or Job the way I would expect it to.

 

[Vanellus]

Saints Jerome and Athanasius had opinions about books in the LXX, their opinions were not the same. Their opinions were not the teaching of the Catholic Church of their day - in their lifetime there was just one Church and it called itself the Catholic Church. Saint Augustine, who was contemporary with Saint Jerome, held to 73 books as canonical (73 when Baruch and Jeremiah are counted separately) and he also had Esther and Daniel in the form that Catholics today read and accept as canonical. The councils at Hippo (where Saint Augustine was bishop), and three at Carthage, and one in Rome all endorsed the 73 books that Catholics today accept as canonical. The council of Florence also ratified the canon it received from Hippo/Carthage/Rome, Trent ratified the same canon, Vatican II ratified it also. So, there is a very long history, stretching from 397 AD until 1965 AD where the Catholic Church has ratified a 73-book canon.

This confirms what I said that there were differences of opinion within the Catholic church given that Jerome and Athanasius were members of the Catholic church - and not just any old members.

 

[Vanellus]

The Ecumenical council of Florence ratified the canon of scripture that was first defined by councils in Rome, Carthage, and Hippo.

So not church wide then.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Just my personal opinion but I prefer not to read Enoch or the other apocryphal books because I worry that I might confuse some of the information with these books with scripture. I started reading Enoch and stopped because I was worried that I might confuse some of messages in Enoch with Genesis. This is just my personal opinion because I wanted to make sure that when I quote the scriptures I’m quoting from the inspired word of God and not mistakenly from apocryphal books.

With such fears as your motive, it is not difficult to understand why you object to the books. I am not afraid of holy scripture. I wonder how you came to fear them and what influences taught you to fear. I have in mind what the scriptures say, namely, "perfect love casts out fear", which is further explained by the immediate context:

If we declare that Jesus is the Son of God, we live in union with God and God lives in union with us. And we ourselves know and believe the love which God has for us. God is love, and those who live in love live in union with God and God lives in union with them. Love is made perfect in us in order that we may have courage on the Judgment Day; and we will have it because our life in this world is the same as Christ's. There is no fear in love; perfect love drives out all fear. So then, love has not been made perfect in anyone who is afraid, because fear has to do with punishment.​

1 John 4:15-18

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I suppose I set myself up for this one by playing loose with "codices," as we don't have extant copies of the codices, instead needing to rely on evidence from the ECF to determine available material which shows no uniformity until Origen's hexapla which somewhat created the myth of the LXX to begin with.

What you have written is not the truth. We do in fact have ancient copies and many fragments from ancient copies of the LXX. We know the content of the LXX, and we have 4th AD century manuscripts that contain either all of the LXX or most of it. Your statements are speculations that some in Protestant apologetic circles use to undermine the real physical evidence of the manuscripts that we do have. We also have the Dead Sea Scrolls which contain some of the books we're discussing or fragments from the books that we're discussing. All of this can be verified online with searches of the DSS and LXX manuscripts that are available in PDF format online.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

But they don’t match the Masoretic Text which predated the Septuagint. The Septuagint was composed 3rd century BC. The Masoretic Text dates back to 7th-10th century BC.

The oldest existing Masoretic Text manuscript is from the 9th century AD. It does not predate the LXX.