The SeptuagintAs stated, The Septuagint is the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old testament Scriptures. It was translated in Alexandria Egypt by 72 Jewish Scholars during the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus (285 - 247 B.C.) because the dispersed Hebrew peoples had lost their native tongue and had begun to speak predominantly Greek. The word 'Septuagint' means '70', but there are actually 72 Scholars who are said to have done the work, six from each of the twelve tribes of Israel. The abbreviation 'LXX' is the number 70 in Roman. In the New Testament there are some 350 Old Testament quotations. Out of the 350, over 300 are from the Septuagint (LXX) which is the Greek translation version of the original Hebrew Scriptures.In addition to quotations and allusions in the four Gospels and the book of Acts, the Apostles and other writers of the New Testament books copied either directly or paraphrased from the Septuagint's Dueterocanonical books (Apocryphal), thus lending support for the inclusion of all or part of SOME specific Apocryphal books so quoted from into the official Cannon of the Bible.
The Septuagint
- Thread starter Christina
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
(kriss;4599)
In the New Testament there are some 350 Old Testament quotations. Out of the 350, over 300 are from the Septuagint (LXX) which is the Greek translation version of the original Hebrew Scriptures.In addition to quotations and allusions in the four Gospels and the book of Acts, the Apostles and other writers of the New Testament books copied either directly or paraphrased from the Septuagint's Dueterocanonical books (Apocryphal), thus lending support for the inclusion of all or part of SOME specific Apocryphal books so quoted from into the official Cannon of the Bible.
There is no official canon of the Bible for Christians. But which books or part books are proposed for addition to the usually agreed canon?
In the New Testament there are some 350 Old Testament quotations. Out of the 350, over 300 are from the Septuagint (LXX) which is the Greek translation version of the original Hebrew Scriptures.In addition to quotations and allusions in the four Gospels and the book of Acts, the Apostles and other writers of the New Testament books copied either directly or paraphrased from the Septuagint's Dueterocanonical books (Apocryphal), thus lending support for the inclusion of all or part of SOME specific Apocryphal books so quoted from into the official Cannon of the Bible.
There is no official canon of the Bible for Christians. But which books or part books are proposed for addition to the usually agreed canon?
I'm sure Kriss has another much more eloquant soliloque prepared on the subject, but to put my two cents in:The Catholic church does have an official Canon that specifically includes the Dueterocanonical books (Apocryphal). They are 1 and 2 Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, Sirach, Wisdom, Baruch, and parts of Daniel and Esther. My thinking is that vitually all non-catholic Christians do not include these books in the regularly used translations, therefore, it's pretty official. But I'm by no means a scholar.Kriss, take it away....:study:
Then there was the 17th Ecumenical Council that ended up in Florence. The 11th session (1442) defined a Canon of Scripture in these terms: "[The Council] professes that one and the same God is the author of the old and the new Testament -- that is, the law and the prophets, and the gospel -- since the saints of both testaments spoke under the inspiration of the same Spirit. It accepts and venerates their books, whose titles are as follows. "Five books of Moses, namely Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, Esdras, Nehemiah, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Job, Psalms of David, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, namely Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi; two books of the Maccabees; the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; fourteen letters of Paul, to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, two to the Thessalonians, to the Colossians, two to Timothy, to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two letters of Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude; Acts of the Apostles; Apocalypse of John." .
(kriss;4610)
Then there was the 17th Ecumenical Council that ended up in Florence.
Ok, but I specified Christian. Christians do not recognise any such council, of course. While it is true that all Protestant denominations recognise the same canon, as do the vast majority of independent Christians, there has never been any official definition of 'the Protestant canon'. The reason is plain to see; Protestants and Christians, who are defined by adherence to sola Scriptura, must recognise only one authority, that of Scripture; Scripture, however, does not define itself, and Christians make their own individual decisions about what their canon is. There can be no heretical 'Father' or group of 'Fathers' to decide these things. Sooner or later, Christians invariably come to the same conclusion about the apocryphal books that have been adopted by some; that they are generally humanist, heretical and offensive to God. There is absolutely no chance that Christians will add any of them to their canon. They are much more likely to add Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress than any of those. This book was for many years second only to the Bible in popularity with Christians, and many consider it to have been inspired.
Then there was the 17th Ecumenical Council that ended up in Florence.
Ok, but I specified Christian. Christians do not recognise any such council, of course. While it is true that all Protestant denominations recognise the same canon, as do the vast majority of independent Christians, there has never been any official definition of 'the Protestant canon'. The reason is plain to see; Protestants and Christians, who are defined by adherence to sola Scriptura, must recognise only one authority, that of Scripture; Scripture, however, does not define itself, and Christians make their own individual decisions about what their canon is. There can be no heretical 'Father' or group of 'Fathers' to decide these things. Sooner or later, Christians invariably come to the same conclusion about the apocryphal books that have been adopted by some; that they are generally humanist, heretical and offensive to God. There is absolutely no chance that Christians will add any of them to their canon. They are much more likely to add Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress than any of those. This book was for many years second only to the Bible in popularity with Christians, and many consider it to have been inspired.
PointerI am not nessiarly disagreeing with you I'm having difficulty understaning whatpoint you are trying to make or what you want me to answer heres a link that you might find of interest http://biblestudysite.com/history.htm
(kriss;4629)
PointerI am not nessiarly disagreeing with you I'm having difficulty understaning whatpoint you are trying to make or what you want me to answer heres a link that you might find of interest http://biblestudysite.com/history.htm
Thanks. It looks rather confused and unscholarly to me.
PointerI am not nessiarly disagreeing with you I'm having difficulty understaning whatpoint you are trying to make or what you want me to answer heres a link that you might find of interest http://biblestudysite.com/history.htm
Thanks. It looks rather confused and unscholarly to me.
Pointer, please don't take my comments the wrong way but it's safe to say that there's a canon in the Protestant world and it can be found in most Bibles that are used be it KJV, NIV, RSV, etc. If you want to hang on the "official" word, then so be it but I don't need a council nor scholar to clarify and define my Bible for me. I think that's an important aspect going back to the personal nature of faith. That being said, we do agree to a large degree on belief in the books. The apocryphal books are worth studying, particarly the books of Enoch and I believe it's called Jubilee. However, I always emphasize caution with these books. Everything you need as a Christian is found within the pages of a good Bible minus the apocrypha.
(SwampFox;4641)
Pointer, please don't take my comments the wrong way but it's safe to say that there's a canon in the Protestant world and it can be found in most Bibles that are used be it KJV, NIV, RSV, etc. If you want to hang on the "official" word, then so be it but I don't need a council nor scholar to clarify and define my Bible for me. I think that's an important aspect going back to the personal nature of faith.
That's what I have been saying; the Christian has the mind of Christ, and has no need of councils or experts who ruminate for years on end thinking about this and that aspect. His sheep know His voice, and they find it instantly and unmistakably in those books that have come to be known as the Protestant Bible. However, what should be noted about Protestants is that they disagree about almost everything except the canon; and they agree without edict from any central authority, because there is no central human office to decide an official canon of Christian Scripture for anyone.
That being said, we do agree to a large degree on belief in the books. The apocryphal books are worth studying, particarly the books of Enoch and I believe it's called Jubilee. However, I always emphasize caution with these books.
Those are not the humanist books adopted as canon that I referred to. I agree that those two are worth a read; they may perhaps assist to get a better understanding of Scripture, but, as you say, caution should be exercised, and will be exercised by those in the Spirit.
Everything you need as a Christian is found within the pages of a good Bible minus the apocrypha.
I agree, though for me the only good Bible is the one in original languages!
Pointer, please don't take my comments the wrong way but it's safe to say that there's a canon in the Protestant world and it can be found in most Bibles that are used be it KJV, NIV, RSV, etc. If you want to hang on the "official" word, then so be it but I don't need a council nor scholar to clarify and define my Bible for me. I think that's an important aspect going back to the personal nature of faith.
That's what I have been saying; the Christian has the mind of Christ, and has no need of councils or experts who ruminate for years on end thinking about this and that aspect. His sheep know His voice, and they find it instantly and unmistakably in those books that have come to be known as the Protestant Bible. However, what should be noted about Protestants is that they disagree about almost everything except the canon; and they agree without edict from any central authority, because there is no central human office to decide an official canon of Christian Scripture for anyone.
That being said, we do agree to a large degree on belief in the books. The apocryphal books are worth studying, particarly the books of Enoch and I believe it's called Jubilee. However, I always emphasize caution with these books.
Those are not the humanist books adopted as canon that I referred to. I agree that those two are worth a read; they may perhaps assist to get a better understanding of Scripture, but, as you say, caution should be exercised, and will be exercised by those in the Spirit.
Everything you need as a Christian is found within the pages of a good Bible minus the apocrypha.
I agree, though for me the only good Bible is the one in original languages!
Similar threads
