The Septuagint vs. The Masoretic Text

ebia said:

Perhaps part of the problem is thinking of the LXX (or any other version contemporary with it) as a concrete thing, as though one could walk into a bookshop and pick up a LXX. Rather it's the label we give to the various biblical scrolls translated into Greek. You couldn't go and buy it as a collection, "complete" collections would be as rare as hens teeth, and even a definitive list of what makes up a complete collection would be missing. And the same would apply to any other tradition.

Click to expand...

This is often forgotten by us modern folk, that neither Jews nor Christians had "Bibles" back then. I think one could really say "Bibles" didn't exist back then as we understand them today. Just scrolls and codices that had Biblical writings in them. "Bibles" didn't become possible until the codex became the norm; and even then how many full Bibles were actually written in a single codex? It was said that when monks were copying Bibles in the Middle Ages, that it took a monk about 20 years to make a single copy of the Bible. Jews it obviously didn't take as long, but still you were probably looking at what 10-15 years for a complete set of Sacred Scrolls to be copied? We modern folk just don't have a full grasp of the magnitude of such a task.

SavedByGraceThruFaith said:

The letters of Paul were written after Jesus Christ was already risen from the dead and ascended into heaven.

Click to expand...

Yet before you said:

SavedByGraceThruFaith said:

It is a myth that the Septuagint was written that early. It was written after the NT was complete.

Click to expand...

Paul spoke Greek and Hebrew. His audience spoke Greek. Why would he write to them in Hebrew?

But it is of interest that Jesus Christ spoke to Paul in the Hebrew tongue on the road to Damascus and that Paul spoke to the Jews in Hebrew in Acts 22.

Click to expand...

And in Act 22 where was he? Jerusalem. Most of the time he was fulfilling his role of the apostle to the gentiles, and in some places, such as Phillipi , they did not even have a synagogue in the town. They were not all speaking Hebrew. They spoke Greek.

And Paul's epistles agree way more than just a bit with the LXX.

But during Jesus Christ's ministry the Hebrews were using Hebrew texts of the OT.

BTW - The word Aramaic is not even in the word of God, so it is a red herring.

Click to expand...

Actually it is not.

Mar 15:34 And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?" which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"


Eloi in the version of Mark is Aramaic.

The LXX sometimes matches and sometimes does not match the NT references to the OT. So that proves nothing.

Click to expand...

It matches quite a bit more than sometimes. It is around 90 percent by most estimates.

Maybe the matches prove that the LXX was written after the NT.

Click to expand...

Yeah, doubtful. You didn't mention the linguistic references that I mentioned at all.

What we do know is that the LXX is never mentioned at all by anyone in scripture.

Click to expand...

Why would they mention "the lxx". They were just using the Greek version of the Scriptures and quoted it to their audience.

You have not presented any actual evidence for your case that it was later. The linguistics do not suggest that. The quoting that matches a high percentage of the time does not match that.

Paul speaking Greek to his Greek audience does not match using only Hebrew.

What is your actual evidence? An argument from silence that they did not mention the name of the translation?

SavedByGraceThruFaith said:

It clearly says Hebrew in the following verses. So Hebrew it is. It never says Aramaic.

John 19:19-20
19 And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was Jesus Of Nazareth The King Of The Jews.
20 This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin.

Click to expand...

Why bother with Greek if no one knows it? Of course, many did know it, as it was the language of the Eastern part of the empire. Paul's audience knew it, and there is no reason to believe that he spoke to them in Hebrew.

Philo, was born somewhere between 20 BC to 10 BC and lived until roughly 50 AD. He lived in Alexandria, and therefore would have been in a better position to be aware of the translation.

This was still within the time period of the writing of some of the epistles. He refers to the translation of the Scriptures into the Greek as being back in the past in his day. Here is a quote from his work A Treatise on the Life of Moses.

Philo: On the Life of Moses, II
or
Philo: On the Life of Moses, II

V. (25) And that beauty and dignity of the legislation of Moses is honoured not among the Jews only, but also by all other nations, is plain, both from what has been already said and from what I am about to state. (26) In olden time the laws were written in the Chaldaean language, and for a long time they remained in the same condition as at first, not changing their language as long as their beauty had not made them known to other nations; (27) but when, from the daily and uninterrupted respect shown to them by those to whom they had been given, and from their ceaseless observance of their ordinances, other nations also obtained an understanding of them, their reputation spread over all lands; for what was really good, even though it may through envy be overshadowed for a short time, still in time shines again through the intrinsic excellence of its nature. Some persons, thinking it a scandalous thing that these laws should only be known among one half portion of the human race, namely, among the barbarians, and that the Greek nation should be wholly and entirely ignorant of them, turned their attention to their translation. (28) And since this undertaking was an important one, tending to the general advantage, not only of private persons, but also of rulers, of whom the number was not great, it was entrusted to kings and to the most illustrious of all kings. (29) Ptolemy, surnamed Philadelphus, was the third in succession after Alexander, the monarch who subdued Egypt; and he was, in all virtues which can be displayed in government, the most excellent sovereign, not only of all those of his time, but of all that ever lived; so that even now, after the lapse of so many generations, his fame is still celebrated, as having left many instances and monuments of his magnanimity in the cities and districts of his kingdom, so that even now it is come to be a sort of proverbial expression to call excessive magnificence, and zeal, for honour and splendour in preparation, Philadelphian, from his name; (30) and, in a word, the whole family of the Ptolemies was exceedingly eminent and conspicuous above all other royal families, and among the Ptolemies, Philadelphus was the most illustrious; for all the rest put together scarcely did as many glorious and praiseworthy actions as this one king did by himself, being, as it were, the leader of the herd, and in a manner the head of all the kings.

VI. (31) He, then, being a sovereign of this character, and having conceived a great admiration for and love of the legislation of Moses, conceived the idea of having our laws translated into the Greek language; and immediately he sent out ambassadors to the high-priest and king of Judea, for they were the same person.


It goes on further to discuss the translation process. However, I can only use so much of the text when citing here.

So we have a reference before the NT was even finished being written referring to the translation of the Scriptures into Greek. It references this happening in the past.

And I already referenced the linguistic evidence showing an earlier date. And there is the fact that the NT quotes match the LXX a high percentage of the time.

knee-v said:

Bede spoke English. I speak English. Yet we speak/spoke two very different languages. Christ and the Apostles may have spoken "Hebrew", but it was not the same language found in the OT. The "Hebrew" spoken by them is referred to as "Aramaic".

Click to expand...

Since living languages are constantly evolving, with the nuances on the same word changing over time, and the same word being given different meanings even over generations; and if Sacred books are copied faithfully to the punctuation marks, how long is it before the original meaning of words is no longer understood?

It is not just a problem for translators, I don't think. If people go to the earlies copies of the Hebrew, how sure can anybody be that the meanings that are now assumed that the words have, in fact did have the same meanings originally?
Granted, something is missing when translators attempt to find the correct meanings from the Hebrew or Greek or Latin into the vernacular, but as Hebrew and Latin and Greek morph into Aramaic, and Spanish and Italian, and any number of modern languages we have now, how can anybody be sure what the original meanings of the words were? Nobody alive was even there to really have a feel for the language as it was spoken back then.

Josephus also agrees with the account of Philo, writing in the 90's AD. He notes that the volumes of the law were first translated under Ptolemy II Philadelphus.

3. I found, therefore, that the second of the Ptolemies was a king who was extraordinarily diligent in what concerned learning, and the collection of books; that he was also peculiarly ambitious to procure a translation of our law, and of the constitution of our government therein contained, into the Greek tongue. Preface to the Antiquities of the Jews.


The Greek translation was not new on the scene in the time of Josephus.

Irenaeus in Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter 21, discussing the LXX rendering of Isaiah 7:14, indicates that the LXX was less free of bias, being translated before the first advent of Christ:


But it was interpreted into Greek by the Jews themselves, much before the period of our Lord's advent, that there might remain no suspicion that perchance the Jews, complying with our humour, did put this interpretation upon these words. They indeed, had they been cognizant of our future existence, and that we should use these proofs from the Scriptures, would themselves never have hesitated to burn their own Scriptures, which do declare that all other nations partake of [eternal] life, and show that they who boast themselves as being the house of Jacob and the people of Israel, are disinherited from the grace of God.

SolomonVII said:

Since living languages are constantly evolving, with the nuances on the same word changing over time, and the same word being given different meanings even over generations; and if Sacred books are copied faithfully to the punctuation marks, how long is it before the original meaning of words is no longer understood?

It is not just a problem for translators, I don't think. If people go to the earlies copies of the Hebrew, how sure can anybody be that the meanings that are now assumed that the words have, in fact did have the same meanings originally?
Granted, something is missing when translators attempt to find the correct meanings from the Hebrew or Greek or Latin into the vernacular, but as Hebrew and Latin and Greek morph into Aramaic, and Spanish and Italian, and any number of modern languages we have now, how can anybody be sure what the original meanings of the words were? Nobody alive was even there to really have a feel for the language as it was spoken back then.

Click to expand...

This I think is the reason why early translations of the Hebrew Scriptures are important in that they provide a witness to the understanding of those Hebrew Scriptures during that period. I think for this reason more study needs to be done to translations such as the LXX, Vulgate, Theodotion or Origen's translations, etc. Most don't realize the enormous difficulties that Hebrew presents for translators, especially before the work of the Masorites.

Achilles6129 said:

The Septuagint (also known as the LXX) was a Greek translation of the Old Testament made between 250-150 BC. The authors of the New Testament quote from it quite frequently and it is commonly agreed that the Septuagint was the Old Testament Bible that the early church used. Here's the problem: the Septuagint differs from the Masoretic (commonly received) Hebrew text; in some cases it differs from it quite considerably.

Which translation do we trust? Which version is the word of God? When the NT authors quote from the Septuagint but the Masoretic says differently, which version do we go from? Any help would be appreciated from someone more knowledgeable about these matters than me. Thanks!

Click to expand...

Neither. We critically evaluate both texts, as well as the textual traditions in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the lesser traditions of the Syriac Peshitta, the Old Latin versions, and Jerome's Latin Vulgate.

We evaluate them using the widely recognized criteria of textual criticism, which looks for probable causes of textual difference through transcription errors and scribal clarifications.

We do the exactly same thing in New Testament studies, where textual criticism evaluates the different manuscript traditions as they are found in various papyri and codices.

The result is an eclectic text, published in the Greek New Testament principally as the Nestle-Aland 27 and the United Bible Societies 4, and done in committee for the Old Testament during the translation process (because there is no widely recognized original language eclectic text, but instead individual publications of the MT, LXX, and others).

GratiaCorpusChristi said:

Neither. We critically evaluate both texts, as well as the textual traditions in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the lesser traditions of the Syriac Peshitta, the Old Latin versions, and Jerome's Latin Vulgate.

We evaluate them using the widely recognized criteria of textual criticism, which looks for probable causes of textual difference through transcription errors and scribal clarifications.

We do the exactly same thing in New Testament studies, where textual criticism evaluates the different manuscript traditions as they are found in various papyri and codices.

The result is an eclectic text, published in the Greek New Testament principally as the Nestle-Aland 27 and the United Bible Societies 4, and done in committee for the Old Testament during the translation process (because there is no widely recognized original language eclectic text, but instead individual publications of the MT, LXX, and others).

Click to expand...

Personally I don't really like the new method of textual criticism. Why? Because it puts translators into the position of having to decide what he/she/they think are the most probable rendering. And as such it places them into the position where it is extremely difficult for them to not be bias, and select the variation that conforms more with their personal beliefs. The NIV is a perfect example of this in my opinion.

Now "mut" Bibles are ok for the normal reader of Scripture, who are not interested in going deeper into the Bible. Like someone said the best Bible translation is the Bible you are reading. But for me, I don't care for these types of Bibles any longer.

What I would prefer to see is Bibles who use a specific Biblical manuscript tradition, with footnotes that state the variations that are found in the other major Biblical traditions. The Bibles should have it posted on their title page which Biblical manuscript tradition being used. If the Bible is based upon the Majority text, the MT, Critical Text, Textus Receptus, Vulgate, LXX, etc.; let the reader know, so that he doesn't have to go digging, and thus when he finds something in that Bible that differs from another translation he hears, instead of scratching his head and wondering what is up, he can figure out pretty quick that it is a different Biblical manuscript tradition he is hearing.

In all honesty, today I only read these types of Bibles. I have basically given up on the "mut" Bibles that have gained popularity today.

tall73 said:

Philo, was born somewhere between 20 BC to 10 BC and lived until roughly 50 AD. He lived in Alexandria, and therefore would have been in a better position to be aware of the translation.

Click to expand...

IIRC, Philo and Josephus were on the same page re the OT canon of 22 books, plus others useful but not divine (God breathed).

Erose said:

Personally I don't really like the new method of textual criticism. Why? Because it puts translators into the position of having to decide what he/she/they think are the most probable rendering. And as such it places them into the position where it is extremely difficult for them to not be bias, and select the variation that conforms more with their personal beliefs. The NIV is a perfect example of this in my opinion.

Now "mut" Bibles are ok for the normal reader of Scripture, who are not interested in going deeper into the Bible. Like someone said the best Bible translation is the Bible you are reading. But for me, I don't care for these types of Bibles any longer.

What I would prefer to see is Bibles who use a specific Biblical manuscript tradition, with footnotes that state the variations that are found in the other major Biblical traditions. The Bibles should have it posted on their title page which Biblical manuscript tradition being used. If the Bible is based upon the Majority text, the MT, Critical Text, Textus Receptus, Vulgate, LXX, etc.; let the reader know, so that he doesn't have to go digging, and thus when he finds something in that Bible that differs from another translation he hears, instead of scratching his head and wondering what is up, he can figure out pretty quick that it is a different Biblical manuscript tradition he is hearing.

In all honesty, today I only read these types of Bibles. I have basically given up on the "mut" Bibles that have gained popularity today.

Click to expand...

Actually, no single person determines what reading is original. Usually they're decided by a committee of scholars, although there is often a lead translator for each book who works in consultation with others. For instance, Bruce Metzger's guide to the USB 4 summarizes the work of the USB 4 committee, but it certainly wasn't just his work.

In any case, major textual variations are usually noted even in translation.

As for English translations of individual manuscripts or individual manuscript traditions, that pretty much ends up with people untrained and unfamiliar with textual criticism in the role of deciding what reading is more original, and often on the basis of whole manuscript traditions rather than any actual evaluation of the process of transcription and transmission- which pretty much guarantees an unacceptable level of stupidity that plagues forums such as this.

GratiaCorpusChristi said:

Actually, no single person determines what reading is original. Usually they're decided by a committee of scholars, although there is often a lead translator for each book who works in consultation with others. For instance, Bruce Metzger's guide to the USB 4 summarizes the work of the USB 4 committee, but it certainly wasn't just his work.

Click to expand...

And yet there is still someone(s) that have to make those decisions; and it that is where the problem occurs. You start having to decide one text rendering from another, you obviously are going to make mistakes. Even when it comes to deciding based on frequency of rendering from ancient manuscripts, mistakes are going to occur, because even here assumptions are being made.

I truly don't like the idea of having a group of scholars tell me what is and is not scriptural, based upon their educated guesses.

GratiaCorpusChristi said:

In any case, major textual variations are usually noted even in translation.

Click to expand...

Not all of them, and in most Biblical translations there isn't discussion about which manuscripts were used in the translation. Thus in a true sense the newer "mut" Bibles, are really can be considered novice Bibles.

GratiaCorpusChristi said:

As for English translations of individual manuscripts or individual manuscript traditions, that pretty much ends up with people untrained and unfamiliar with textual criticism in the role of deciding what reading is more original, and often on the basis of whole manuscript traditions rather than any actual evaluation of the process of transcription and transmission- which pretty much guarantees an unacceptable level of stupidity that plagues forums such as this.

Click to expand...

And whose fault is that? Obviously there are many who feel the need to translate these manuscript traditions, as they are; and yet for some reason you have these professional scholars, who don't truly see the need for it. Instead they seek the holy grail of trying to translate a Bible that would be exactly the same as the original; which will never happen for we really don't know what these originals would look like. I would even boldly state that some archeologist can come across an original manuscript of one of the writings in Scripture and never know it, unless that manuscript is glowing and/or some other miracle attached to it.

Standing Up said:

The myth is to think LXX viewed its detero books as the same as its 22 books. It didn't, per Josephus.

Maccabees is not considered divine by them or early Christians (Melito for example).

Click to expand...

Well done there

I would agree the early church held the classic distinctions between the usage, of the detero and the 22 OT books held with in the temple as the authoritative word of God.

The KJV of 1611 had the detero included and understood the historical distinction, it seems that due to the Roman catholic denomination we have lost our ability to do that....

We during the reformation Cajetan a Bishop sent to deal with Luther from Rome exposing the historical view of the church:



Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage


But I am still a bit confused as the what that has to do with the dating of the LXX.


In Him,

Bill

BBAS 64 said:

Well done there

I would agree the early church held the classic distinctions between the usage, of the detero and the 22 OT books held with in the temple as the authoritative word of God.

The KJV of 1611 had the detero included and understood the historical distinction, it seems that due to the Roman catholic denomination we have lost our ability to do that....

We during the reformation Cajetan a Bishop sent to deal with Luther from Rome exposing the historical view of the church:



Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage


But I am still a bit confused as the what that has to do with the dating of the LXX.


In Him,

Bill

Click to expand...

i do find it extremely entertaining, which I shouldn't be, the hoops one jumps through to justify their beliefs, that truly have no justification to them. Do you guys realize that St. Jerome's opinion was just that his opinion? Which I would like to add he recanted, or should I say he denied having later in his life as he received heat from his contemporaries. Not only that Jerome was a priest, not a bishop and not a pope. So he had absolutely no authority to change any practice of the Church. And yet you guys constantly use him as an excuse on why it is justifiable for your Protestant forefathers to reject the Christian OT for the Masoretic OT.

Achilles6129 said:

God evidently is very concerned, since Christ said that it is easier for heaven and earth to pass than for one jot/tittle to pass from the law. That's a pretty serious statement. In addition, Christ says things like "thy word is truth" and so on and so forth.

Click to expand...

I suppose one could understand those statements your way. It doesn't seem a very natural reading though. And it flies in the face of the NT being pretty indifferent to the question, apparently drawing from Greek, Hebrew and paraphrases of the texts.

So, no. I think I have to conclude it reflects more of a human obsession with wanting certainty on irrelevant detail while being distracted from the message.

Erose said:

i do find it extremely entertaining, which I shouldn't be, the hoops one jumps through to justify their beliefs, that truly have no justification to them. Do you guys realize that St. Jerome's opinion was just that his opinion? Which I would like to add he recanted, or should I say he denied having later in his life as he received heat from his contemporaries. Not only that Jerome was a priest, not a bishop and not a pope. So he had absolutely no authority to change any practice of the Church. And yet you guys constantly use him as an excuse on why it is justifiable for your Protestant forefathers to reject the Christian OT for the Masoretic OT.

Click to expand...

Good Day,

Even more enjoyable is an internet poster claiming to belong to the Roman denomination who lacks the understanding and ability to interpret the teaching of the Bishop with in their own denomination...

Great unhistorical assertions you make here..... I stick to the Bishop as I find him much more compelling historically than you and clearly has a greater understanding of the issue than you do.

If you have an historical source of someone attempting to correct Cajetan as his shows how scripture is to be viewed, and the correct understanding of previous councils on the issue then please cite it, I would love to see it as would so many other current day Roman Catholic historians.

As to Jerome, he is not stating his view, but giving the view of the church:

As the church reads...... this was the preface used for Wisdom of Solomon in the Latin he wrote under the direction of the Bishop of Rome.

I would think if the Bishop of Rome did not agree there would be a record of his disagreement, seeing none in history it is fair to assume he agreed with Jerome.

As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it read these two volumes for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church. If any one is better pleased with the edition of the Seventy, there it is, long since corrected by me. For it is not our aim in producing the new to destroy the old. And yet if our friend reads carefully, he will find that our version is the more intelligible, for it has not turned sour by being poured three times over into different vessels, but has been drawn straight from the press, and stored in a clean jar, and has thus preserved its own flavour.





In Him,


Bill

Erose said:

i do find it extremely entertaining, which I shouldn't be, the hoops one jumps through to justify their beliefs, that truly have no justification to them. Do you guys realize that St. Jerome's opinion was just that his opinion? Which I would like to add he recanted, or should I say he denied having later in his life as he received heat from his contemporaries. Not only that Jerome was a priest, not a bishop and not a pope. So he had absolutely no authority to change any practice of the Church. And yet you guys constantly use him as an excuse on why it is justifiable for your Protestant forefathers to reject the Christian OT for the Masoretic OT.

Click to expand...

It is a moot point to make an argument from authority with people who do not believe in with the same quasi-magical, mysterious, miraculous authority of an infallible Pope and Church as what you maintain is self-evident.

It is perfectly acceptable for all of us to understand that it was just St Jerome's opinion. What makes the opinion of the Pope any more credible though, than that of Jerome, except for magical thinking that this must be so?

St Jerome's opinion on the other hand is the opinion of the pre-eminent Biblical scholar of his day.
And yes, that is still just an opinion. But it is also an opinion that falls into an early historical time period, and therefore is testimony to the diversity of opinion regarding what makes up Scripture from a very early date.

You do make an astute observation on the way that the magic of authority operates nevertheless, with "Jerome feeling the heat", and surely with that kind of pressure, only the most fanatical will not recant.

That is what authority means, and what it always has meant. It is the ability to bend others to your own will due to the power of any given position.

Jerome nevertheless does not reject the Masoretic text, but the Vulgate is a translation that relies heavily on the Masoretic text, does it not? What Jerome had problems was the idea that the Greek Deuterocanons were of the same quality as the more ancient Hebrew texts that preceded all that came after.

It was a question of quality then, and that question was raised in Jerome in his day, just as surely as it is raised by Christians who share his same reservations in this day.

Arguments from authority miss the point in interdenominational studies, for 'it is true because I say it is true' does not do nothing to address the issue of quality, which was the main contention in the first place.

On the other hand, The LXXvs the Masoretic as it pertains to Deuterocanons is really an apple and oranges issue, since Deuterocanons are not a part of the Masoretic in the first place, and there is nothing to compare to.

The larger issue of course is which version of the Bible is truer when the comparison is between books that the two versions share.

The Vulgate of Jerome remains truer to the Masoretic than the LXX, does it not? It is my understanding that it did.

Good Day, Solomon

You are correct about Jerome and his never-ending use of anything but the Greek LXX. There was a debate on the issue between Augusitine and Jerome that was quite heated. Jerome being the hard head that he was and being the pre-eminent scholar on the issue took Augstine as welll as others to the wood shed over the issue.

Even though the aprocrypha books that are viewd as historical only with in the Jewish traditions and the early church. Tjhere at some point in time were Hebrew copies of those texts, though not included in the Masoretic text, nor amoung the scrolls kept in the temple. They were quoted no doubt, but did not hold the same place (not authoritative) as the Word of God as seen in Jerome preface previously posted.


"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." "

Jerome notes:

Among the Jews, the book of Judith is considered among the apocrypha; its warrant for affirming those [apocryphal texts] which have come into dispute is deemed less than sufficient. Moreover, since it was written in the Chaldean language, it is counted among the historical books. But since the Nicene Council is considered to have counted this book among the number of sacred Scriptures, I have acquiesced to your request (or should I say demand!): and, my other work set aside, from which I was forcibly restrained, I have given a single night's work , translating according to sense rather than verbatim. I have hacked away at the excessively error-ridden panoply of the many codices; I conveyed in Latin only what I could find expressed coherently in the Chaldean words. Receive the widow Judith, example of chastity, and with triumphant praise acclaim her with eternal public celebration. For not only for women, but even for men, she has been given as a model by the one who rewards her chastity, who has ascribed to her such virtue that she conquered the unconquered among humanity, and surmounted the insurmountable.

Jerome did not trust nor did he use the Greek as a basis for his work, and given the tone here and Jerome's nose for a good argument he was not very pleased in doing this work and did it in a way that way ouside his norm. Be assured what we have today that we call Judith is very diffenet than that which was contained in the LXX.

Which begs a question if one was to accept the presups of the Roman Catholic members here:

By what authority did Jerome hack away thing that he consiodered errors?


A couple of historical notes:

Our analysis has shown that the vast weight of historical evidence falls on the side of excluding the Apocrypha from the category of canonical Scripture. It is interesting to note that the only two Fathers of the early Church who are considered to be true biblical scholars, Jerome and Origen (and who both spent time in the area of Palestine and were therefore familiar with the Hebrew canon), rejected the Apocrypha. And the near unanimous opinion of the Church followed this view. And coupled with this historical evidence is the fact that these writings have serious internal difficulties in that they are characterized by heresies, inconsistencies and historical inaccuracies which invalidate their being given the status of Scripture. New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. I (Washington D.C.: Catholic University, 1967), p. 390.

An appeal to some (infallible authority) Pope for quidance on the issue has two problems.

1. One must presume he or she is ifallible (unable to error) in in seeing some one as authortive.
2. Pope Gregory in his work on Job notes, Macabees as not Canonical, but used for edification of the church, same as the church in Jeromes day and same view of Luther, and Bishop Cajchen during the reformation.

With reference to which particular we are not acting irregularly, if from the books, though not Canonical yet brought out for the edifying of the Church, we bring forward testimony. Thus Eleazar in the battle smote and brought down an elephant, but fell under the very beast that he killed. [1 Macc. 6, 46] Whom, then, does this one represent, whom his own victory bore down, but those persons who overcome bad habits, but by being lifted up are brought down under the very things they bring under? For it is as if he died under the enemy he lays low, who is lifted up by the sin that he subdues. Accordingly it deserves above every thing to be considered, that good points cannot avail, if bad ones that creep in unawares are not guarded against.

in Him,

Bill