Erm . . . yes . . . it's me again

[LuxPerpetua]

What exactly do Protestants reject about the books of the Bible included in Orthodox and Catholic Bibles but not in Protestant Bibles? I know the generalities but do you know of any *specific* passages? Is there a way for me to read these books without having to go purchase a new Bible (those get pricey!) Are these books online anywhere?

Thanks in advance for your wisdom and help.

 

[Oblio]

Yes they are online, you can also get the RSV Deutercanonicals (if you PM me, it is IIRC out of ePrint) for eSword which is a great free Bibleware program.

 

[LuxPerpetua]

What are the RSV Deutercanonicals?

 

[Oblio]

One of the reasons that the Protestants reject the Deutercanon is that it verifies the doctrine of the Communion of the Saints.

What he saw was this: Onias, who had been high priest, a noble and good man, of modest bearing and gentle manner, one who spoke fittingly and had been trained from childhood in all that belongs to excellence, was praying with outstretched hands for the whole body of the Jews. Then likewise a man appeared, distinguished by his gray hair and dignity, and of marvelous majesty and authority. And Onias spoke, saying, "This is a man who loves the brethren and prays much for the people and the holy city, Jeremiah, the prophet of God." Jeremiah stretched out his right hand and gave to Judas a golden sword, and as he gave it he addressed him thus: "Take this holy sword, a gift from God, with which you will strike down your adversaries."
(2 Maccabees 15:12-16)

 

[Lotar]

This site has the Apocrypha but not the Deutercanonicals.
http://unbound.biola.edu/

I bought an Oxford KJV w/ Apocrypha for $20, I've seen the RSV version with all the Orthodox books for a similiar price. If you don't go for the leather you can bibles fairly cheaply.

 

[Oblio]

Orthodox (and IIRC Catholics) prefer the term Deutercanonical over Apocrypha which means hidden. There is nothing hidden about them, unless you are a member of some of the Protestant denominations that give them absolutely no consideration. For Orthodox, they are indeed Holy Scripture, and have been ever since there was a canon of the Bible.

 

[Reader Nilus]

http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/rsv.browse.html
That link has the books of the Old Testament in the RSV. The books rejected by the Protestants are there.
Jeff the Finn

 

[prodromos]

What exactly do Protestants reject about the books of the Bible included in Orthodox and Catholic Bibles but not in Protestant Bibles?

I think by far the majority of Protestants don't have a clue as to what is in the Deutercanonicals. They are not rejecting them as such, just going along with the tradition they received, although since the Catholics include them in the bible it is inherant in their Protestant tradition to reject anything too "Catholic"

Basically they have received this understanding that the Hebrew canon of the Old Testament (that decided by the Jews in response to the Christian use of the Greek Septuagint) is the most ancient and reliable, despite the fact that the Greek translation of the Old Testament (Septuagint) was produced by Jews who were awaiting the Messiah and thus had no agenda, whereas the Council of Jamina which decided the Hebrew canon, was made up of Jews who had rejected Jesus as the Messiah and thus had an anti christian agenda.

John.

 

[Momzilla]

I think John is right--the vast majority of protestants may be aware that there are "additional" books in the Catholic bible, but they have no idea why.

 

[Hix]

Basically they have received this understanding that the Hebrew canon of the Old Testament (that decided by the Jews in response to the Christian use of the Greek Septuagint) is the most ancient and reliable, despite the fact that the Greek translation of the Old Testament (Septuagint) was produced by Jews who were awaiting the Messiah and thus had no agenda, whereas the Council of Jamina which decided the Hebrew canon, was made up of Jews who had rejected Jesus as the Messiah and thus had an anti christian agenda.

John.

Shalom John,

Actually history records in and is backed up by such writings as Josephous that the translation to greek by the 70 Rabbis (hence its name LXX) was only the Torah portion, ie the first five books of Moses. The rest of what is modern day Septuagint was translated by the church, and has been found to differ from the original hebrew (the masoretic text) in a number of areas.

Shalom and G-d bless!
~Hix~

 

[prodromos]

Actually history records in and is backed up by such writings as Josephous that the translation to greek by the 70 Rabbis (hence its name LXX) was only the Torah portion, ie the first five books of Moses.

Agreed.

The rest of what is modern day Septuagint was translated by the church

Disagree. My understanding is that all of it was finished prior to Christ. A number of the books were not even in Hebrew to begin with. Some were in Greek.

and has been found to differ from the original hebrew (the masoretic text) in a number of areas.

Agreed

John.

 

[Eusebios]

Lux,
The LXX O.T. in English is available as a PDF here .
I tend to agree with others here. As a Protestant convert to Orthodoxy, I was primarily ignorant of the reason(s) for rejecting the "Catholic" books. I readily accepted that the canon as used in the Protestant world was the best and most correct one.
Having spent several years now in Orthodoxy, I have been able to see why the Jews were so upset about the LXX, and find it puzzling at best as to why we as Christians, and that means all Christians, are so easily convinced to use an OT version so clearly hostile to Christ. By that I mean that so much typology was expunged from the text that is enlightening and edifying for all believers.
I digress.
His unworthy servant,
Eusebios.

 

[Patristic]

After spending time reading the Deutero-cannonical books I realized that they contain many passages that teach Catholic/Orthodox doctrines. Oblio mentioned one from 2 Maccabees that teaches the communion of the saints; There is also a passage in 2 Maccabees that speaks of prayers for the departed. There is a passage in the book of Wisdom which speaks of God's love for His creation, and the fact that He would not have created anything that He hates. This verse is too difficult to line up with the Reformation's harsh doctrine of predestination which believes God hates the reprobate so it's easier to dismiss the book from which it comes than to just expunge one chapter or a few verses.

 

[Oblio]

After spending time reading the Deutero-cannonical books I realized that they contain many passages that teach Catholic/Orthodox doctrines. Oblio mentioned one from 2 Maccabees that teaches the communion of the saints; There is also a passage in 2 Maccabees that speaks of prayers for the departed. There is a passage in the book of Wisdom which speaks of God's love for His creation, and the fact that He would not have created anything that He hates. This verse is too difficult to line up with the Reformation's harsh doctrine of predestination which believes God hates the reprobate so it's easier to dismiss the book from which it comes than to just expunge one chapter or a few verses.

In addition, in all of the NT Epistles we see no correction of those practices (Communion of the Saints, prayers for the dead etc.) that are evidenced by the books that were removed 1500 years later. If indeed they were not to be practiced by the Church we would expect to see a verse that says: Brethren, see that ye do not offer prayer and supplication for the dead, nor ask for intercessions of the Saints who have gone before us ...

 

[MariaRegina]

Shalom John,

Actually history records in and is backed up by such writings as Josephous that the translation to greek by the 70 Rabbis (hence its name LXX) was only the Torah portion, ie the first five books of Moses. The rest of what is modern day Septuagint was translated by the church, and has been found to differ from the original hebrew (the masoretic text) in a number of areas.

Shalom and G-d bless!
~Hix~

I was taught that the Masoretic text is a more recent text (around 200 AD) which contains vowel points, hence some errors are present. Jerome even referred to this Masoretic text.

The Greek Septuagint was translated into Greek around 200 BC for the Jews in the Diaspora who needed a Greek text since Greek was the language of the known world at that time.

 

[LuxPerpetua]

Thanks everyone!

 

[TWells]

Shalom John,

Actually history records in and is backed up by such writings as Josephous that the translation to greek by the 70 Rabbis (hence its name LXX) was only the Torah portion, ie the first five books of Moses. The rest of what is modern day Septuagint was translated by the church, and has been found to differ from the original hebrew (the masoretic text) in a number of areas.

Shalom and G-d bless!
~Hix~

I dont know of any scholars who believe the LXX was translated by the early Christians. Its generally believed the LXX Torah was translated by Alexandrian Jews in the 3rd century BC and the Prophets and Writings soon after.

For a while many scholars did believe the LXX and Samaritan Pentateuch were inferior to the Masoretic Text but the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls has changed this completely. 90% of the time the DSS agree with the LXX and SP over the MT and its now known that the differences between the texts are not the result of translation issues but because they were working with different Hebrew text bases. Meaning there is no Family that is superior to the other. The reasons for choosing one over the other for the Rabbi's was theological. Which is completely legitimate just as we Orthodox Christians believe the LXX to be the more inspired text.

As far as Protestant rejection of the Duterocanonicals ive come to agree with a theory advocated by Frank Moore Cross (one of the worlds leading authorities on the DSS). Its generally believed that there are three textual families that we know of for the Hebrew Bible: Babylonian (MT), Old Palestinian (SP) and Egyptian (LXX). For reasons unknown the Rabbi's of Jamnia chose a Babylonian stream rather than the Palestinian. Cross believes the reason for this is the influence Hillel the Babylonian on Pharisaic Judaism and Hillel's preference for that textual stream. There is no evidence of a fixed canon in Judaism prior to AD 70 nor in Qumran or Alexandria. If this theory is correct (and there is much evidence to support it) then Protestants have basically taken sides with the Pharisees in a textual dispute that took place 50-60 years after the birth of the Church under the influence of a specific Rabbi.