If Protestants believe that TaNaKh is the right canon, why don't they use it?

[Abrahamist]

The protestant Old Testament is, in fact, not the Hebrew TaNaKh but actually the Septuagint with the deutorocanonical books removed. This is not the same thing as the arrangement of the books are different.

 

[Knee V]

I agree that they order the books differently, but they translate from the Hebrew, and I don't see how there's any difference, since the content is the same.

 

[WinBySurrender]

I agree that they order the books differently, but they translate from the Hebrew, and I don't see how there's any difference, since the content is the same.

Exactly. To what purpose is the OP's question asked?

 

[Hediru]

Could the OP be referring to the collection of books that protestants refer to as the Apocrypha? We do not normally use those books because we do not feel that they are as authentic. They were originally written in Greek or Aramaic instead of Hebrew. However, because our Roman Catholic and Orthodox brothers and sisters still consider them to be authoritative, we have these books grouped together in the Apocrypha in between the Old and New Testaments. We consider them to be authoritative, but slightly less so than the Hebrew books.

 

[bach90]

I think he's trying to ask why Protestants use the Masoretic (Hebrew) Canon, but use the Septuagint (Greek) ordering of books.

 

[miamited]

hi abrahamist,

Protestants do use the canon of the old covenant as established by God's people Israel. Here's a site that might help in understanding how we got from there to here: http://www.tektonics.org/lp/otcanon.html

As far as anyone knows, throughout the history of the Jews, there isn't any definitive list whereby we are told, "These are the writings of the old covenant." No, not at all. The several synagogues had scrolls which were kept and copied as they aged or copies were needed. There were some that were common to all the synagogues, specifically the Penteteuch, but others that one synagogue may have had, but another didn't. Jesus stated that there was the Law (the five books of Moses), the prophets, and the Psalms. However, he didn't list who were the prophets of God.

Today we do have the writings that are believed to have been the most generally and widely accepted of the whole of Israel as the old covenant, although we have rearranged some of the writtings.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Abrahamist]

Could the OP be referring to the collection of books that protestants refer to as the Apocrypha? We do not normally use those books because we do not feel that they are as authentic. They were originally written in Greek or Aramaic instead of Hebrew. However, because our Roman Catholic and Orthodox brothers and sisters still consider them to be authoritative, we have these books grouped together in the Apocrypha in between the Old and New Testaments. We consider them to be authoritative, but slightly less so than the Hebrew books.

The Catholic Bible does not contain any Apocrypha. The correct term is Deuterocanonical.

I was referring to the fact that the Protestant Old Testament is the Septuagint with the Deuterocanonical books edited.

Luther didn't take a TaNaKh and translate that into English. Instead, he took the Septuagint and took out the books that were not also in the TaNaKh.

Both the TaNaKh and the Septuagint was widely used by Jewish world during Jesus' lifetime and the Septuagint was the canon adopted by the early Church. In 90 AD, a counsel of rabbis decided to abandon the Septuagint in favor of the TaNaKh. This was done for two reasons; Although most of the New Testament had been written by this time, it had not yet been collected and canonized. The only thing that separated the Christians from the Jews was the oral traditio and so they abandoned the Septuagint to further distinguish themselves from the early Church. Also, the Deuterocanonical books had proved to be an effective tool for converting Jews to Christianity.

And so the Church has used the Septuagint all the way up to the present day.

When Luther began the Protestant reformation, he didn't abandon the Septuagint in favor of the TaNaKh. Instead, he edited the Septuagint.

 

[Abrahamist]

hi abrahamist,

Protestants do use the canon of the old covenant as established by God's people Israel. Here's a site that might help in understanding how we got from there to here: http://www.tektonics.org/lp/otcanon.html

As far as anyone knows, throughout the history of the Jews, there isn't any definitive list whereby we are told, "These are the writings of the old covenant." No, not at all. The several synagogues had scrolls which were kept and copied as they aged or copies were needed. There were some that were common to all the synagogues, specifically the Penteteuch, but others that one synagogue may have had, but another didn't. Jesus stated that there was the Law (the five books of Moses), the prophets, and the Psalms. However, he didn't list who were the prophets of God.

Today we do have the writings that are believed to have been the most generally and widely accepted of the whole of Israel as the old covenant, although we have rearranged some of the writtings.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

The last sentence is where you lost me. "We" didn't rearrange some of the writings. The Greek Septuagint was a different canonization and the one used by the Church from the beginning.

Luther didn't translate a TaNaKh but rearrange the book order. He translated a Septuagint and edited out the Deuterocanonical books.

 

[rivertree]

Hey, I’m just learning what the TaNaKh is! I’ve got Septuagints, masoretes, and Persherim running around in my head! Have pity on the poor tyro, brothers!

 

[miamited]

hi abrahamist,

If you would give me an answer I would appreciate it. Jesus mentioned several times 'the Scriptures'. He rebuked the Pharisees for not knowing them and he proved to his disciples on the road Emmaus who he was from 'the Scriptures'.

Can you give me the list of writings by name of each scroll what he was calling 'the Scriptures'?

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[bach90]

Luther didn't translate a TaNaKh but rearrange the book order. He translated a Septuagint and edited out the Deuterocanonical books.

This is incorrect. The Old Testament of the Luther Bible is from the Bomberg edition of the OT, which is in Hebrew (The same textual basis of the KJV). The Apocrypha of the Luther Bible was indeed translated from the Septuagint as there are no Hebrew manuscripts of the Apocryphal books.

 

[miamited]

hi bach,

You wrote: The Apocrypha of the Luther Bible was indeed translated from the Septuagint as there are no Hebrew manuscripts of the Apocryphal books.

Wow! What an eye opening claim! If I am to believe what Paul seems to have claimed in writing that the chief purpose of the Jews was that they were entrusted with the oracles of God, it certainly raises questions as to what people brought forth the writings classified as the apochrypha. Why are there no Hebrew manuscripts of the Apochryphal books?

As I understand the Scriptures, God raised up Abram in Ur of the Chaldeans for the express purpose of building a nation of people who would do His bidding upon the earth. The chief part of that overall purpose, according to Paul, is that they were entrusted of God to write down and hand down from generation to generation, the Scriptures. The nation of Israel was raised up of God for the very purpose of writing down and preserving all that God revealed to them about Himself; who He is and His desires and plan for man.

I cannot trust that what the Hittites might have written down thousands of years ago about God is true. I cannot trust that what the Philistines may have written down thousands of years ago about God are true. I can, however, trust that what God's people, raised up of God to fulfill their purpose in the plan of God, have written to me concerning the things of God is true. Why don't we have any Hebrew manuscripts that confirm the apocraphyl writings?

God bless you.
IN Christ, Ted

 

[miamited]

hi again bach,

However, I know the answer. It can be found here: The Apocryphal Books - Are they lost books of the Bible?

 

[Zoe of Elyon]

If you're wondering why the order of the Christian Old Testament books is different from the Tanakh, I believe it was Eusebius - somebody correct me if it was somebody else - who reordered the books into more of a chronological order (although why he put Job where he did is beyond me), because that order made more sense to the Gentile Christians. I think the original order of the books is superior to what we have now. It's not a random compilation; it's a carefully ordered arrangement that creates a circular structure typical of Hebrew literature. It also roughly parallels the structure of the New Testament (well, Genesis and Revelation are a mirror), which in my opinion is pretty cool.

 

[Standing_Ultraviolet]

This is incorrect. The Old Testament of the Luther Bible is from the Bomberg edition of the OT, which is in Hebrew (The same textual basis of the KJV). The Apocrypha of the Luther Bible was indeed translated from the Septuagint as there are no Hebrew manuscripts of the Apocryphal books.

I will disagree with you somewhat here, although the majority of what you said is correct. Some of the Old Testament books which we use that are not utilized by Protestants actually were found in the caves at Qumran in Hebrew and Aramaic, and we do utilize those in translation now. Obviously at the time of Luther the Dead Sea Scrolls weren't known yet.

 

[bach90]

Hi Ted,

I'm not sure at what your getting at. I don't put the Apocrypha on the same level as the Canon, but they are good and useful to read. None of the reformers threw them out completely, it was only in the 1800s that the Apocrypha stopped being included in printed editions of the Bible, and then mostly to save a buck in the publishing process. Different books of the Apocrypha have different levels of usefulness as well. Sirach for example is a very useful book, it provides one of the earliest recorded lists of the Canon and for the most part rightly distinguishes between Law and Gospel. Sirach 28:2 is also very close to the fifth petition of the Lord's Prayer. The main issue with Sirach would be that it has the tendency to ascribe works to Justification, which contradicts canonical works (Deut 9:4-6 for example). Other works have less value such as 2 Maccabees (which contradicts known historical events and has contradictions in the book itself).

Hi GlobalWolf,

I believe you are talking about Ezra, Baruch, and Enoch right? I should have qualified that statement with at the time there were no Hebrew manuscripts of the Apocrypha, but I was addressing the claim that the Luth 1545 OT was translated from the LXX, which is incorrect. Luther was hardline about translating from the original languages.

I don't think the fact that no Hebrew manuscripts of a work, by itself, disqualifies it from the Canon (although it plays a part). Rather if the work has parts which contradict other parts of Scripture, it can't be considered part of the Canon. In addition there are some historical concerns with the Apocrypha in the OT and the Antilegomena in the NT. It as not as if these books are outright heretical like, say, the Acts of Paul and Thecla , but they can't be held on the same level as the (Proto)Canon. The East never had the issue of language as they accepted the LXX (though they shared with the west similar concerns about the Apocrypha). It was not until the Council of Trent though that acceptance of the Apocrypha was made a requirement on pain of anathema (though previous canons had included them in the list).

 

[bach90]

If you're wondering why the order of the Christian Old Testament books is different from the Tanakh, I believe it was Eusebius - somebody correct me if it was somebody else - who reordered the books into more of a chronological order (although why he put Job where he did is beyond me), because that order made more sense to the Gentile Christians. I think the original order of the books is superior to what we have now. It's not a random compilation; it's a carefully ordered arrangement that creates a circular structure typical of Hebrew literature. It also roughly parallels the structure of the New Testament (well, Genesis and Revelation are a mirror), which in my opinion is pretty cool.

It's possible that it was Eusebius, but from what I remember the LXX changed the ordering a few hundred years before. Ordering of course wouldn't have been important in a time before the codex.

As to why Job is where it is, there are two reasons. The first is the tradition that Job wrote Moses. The second is that it doesn't really fit anywhere else. Chronologically the events take place earlier than the later books so it can't be later in the histories and he's not a prophet so he can't be placed with the prophets.

 

[WinBySurrender]

I think he's trying to ask why Protestants use the Masoretic (Hebrew) Canon, but use the Septuagint (Greek) ordering of books.

And since the only difference is the order, not the content, who cares?

 

[rivertree]

Sheesh, I have been reading the Bible for years, and just now learned of the Septuagint-Masoratic Text controversy. I had heard of both of these sources separately at some time. Yesterday I came across some interesting information on The Jewish Virtual Library under the article titled "Dead Sea Scrolls". I'd give down the URL, but as a newby, I can't do that yet. I'm sure there must be a good reason, and the the powers-that-be have that all figured out for our protection. Anyway, here is a quote from that article:

"The Qumran Library

The collection of writing recovered in the Qumran environs has restored to us a voluminous corpus of Jewish documents dating from the third century B.C.E. to 68 C.E., demonstrating the rich literary activity of Second Temple-period Jewry. The collection comprises documents of a varied nature, most of them of a distinct religious bent. The chief categories represented are biblical, apocryphal or pseudepigraphical, and sectarian writings. The study of this original library has demonstrated that the boundaries between these categories is far from clear-cut.


The biblical manuscripts include what are probably the earliest copies of these texts to have come down to us. Most of the books of the Bible are represented in the collection. Some books are extant in large number of copies; others are represented only fragmentarily on mere scraps of parchment. The biblical texts display considerable similarity to the standard Masoretic (received) text. This, however, is not always the rule, and many texts diverge from the Masoretic. For example, some of the texts of Samuel from Cave 4 follow the Septuagint, the Greek version of the Bible translated in the third to second centuries B.C.E. Indeed. Qumran has yielded copies of the Septuagint in Greek.


The biblical scrolls in general have provided many new readings that facilitate the reconstruction of the textual history of the Old Testament. It is also significant that several manuscripts of the Bible, including the Leviticus Scroll are inscribed not in the Jewish script dominant at the time but rather in the ancient paleo-Hebrew script."

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

<snip>
Luther didn't take a TaNaKh and translate that into English.
<snip>

BTW, Luther did not translate anything into English.