Roman Catholic and The Bible.

[steve]

Popeman,

You wrote (to Karen):

Ok, that being said. Where do you get the Scriptural sense that she is a virgin, when the Jewish OT states that she is simply a "young woman". Earlier I illustrataed very different Hebrew words for virgin and young woman. Jewish scholars are adamant that Mary was not a virgin that gave birth.

Every Protestant commentator on Isaiah that I have ever read mentions the difference between the reading of the Hebrew and of the Septuagint on the word "alma" and "bethulah," at Isaiah 7:14. It is not a Catholic point. It would be very weak to support the virgin birth on this verse alone, since the verse, in its context, is not obviously predicting the birth of the Messiah. So "Where do you get the Scriptural sense that she is a virgin...?" The answer is, from other relevant scriptures, and the New testament citation of this one as well. This is the way Protestants recommend that biblical studies be done: take all the relevant statements of scripture, and do not give any of them a meaning that is not justified by its context.

In the New Testament, Matthew 1:22-23 (quoting the Septuagint) applies Isaiah 7:14 to Mary, saying she was a virgin. Then Matthew 1:25 confirms that she remained a virgin until the birth of Jesus. Luke provides a different line of evidence for the same doctrine. In Luke 1:34, when Mary was informed by the angel that she would have a child, she asked, "How can this be, since I do not know a man?" In other words, she was a virgin. The angel then went on to explain to her that the Holy Spirit, acting without the agency of any man, would cause the conception to take place, so that her child would be "the Son of God" (Luke 1:35).

Thus, we do not depend on Isaiah alone for the doctrine of the virgin birth.

On the other hand, we have no problem admitting that the New Testament authors relied upon the Septuagint's renderings, at least as much as they depended upon the Hebrew Bible. The point you are wishing to make, if I am not mistaken, is that the Septuagint contained the Apocrypha, and that we should assume that the New Testament writers, who quoted from the Septuagint, must also have accepted the inspiration of the Apocrypha (and thus, so should we).

However, this argument is greatly weakened by the fact that the Septuagint contains books besides your Apocrypha, which are not included in either the Catholic Bible or the Protestant Bible (they are all included only in the Eastern Orthodox Bible). If your argument has weight, then we should accept all the books in the Septuagint. Neither your Bible nor ours include them all. The Septuagint was not necessarily just the Greek Bible. It was a library of Greek Jewish writings of various values, including the canonical books of the Hebrew Bible, the Tanakh (corresponding to the 39 books of the Protestant Old Testament). That the early Christians sometimes quoted the Septuagint's rendering of a biblical text does not mean that they accepted every book in the Septuagint as scripture. Nor should we.

[popeman]

That interpretation of Isaiah 7:14 related to the NT is correct, but we, as Christians, rely often of the OT being a fore-shadowing of what is to come. Here Isaiah 7:14 fore-shadows the virgin birth in the NT. There is nothing wrong with that and also a correct assertion.

The problem herein lies the Protestant assumption that they have the true bible (ie, Catholics added Scripture) by stating they use only the Hebrew text because the Catholics use a Greek Septuagint to back their OT text which has the seven books and additions to Esther, et al.

If that is truly the case (Protestants use a Hebrew text) then it would reflect that in the truest sense, ie, a young woman gave birth to the Messiah, not a virgin birth. Where else is there such a great OT/NT fore-shadowing/pre-figuration than Isaiah 7:14 of the virgin birth? Yet, the Hebrews did not believe this “virgin” birth to bring the Messiah back. It was in the Greek/Septuagint OT passage that Jewish converts were convinced that Jesus was the Messiah. Without going into a long dissertation please go to this Jewish site discussion for an in-depth discussion of this very point: http://www.messiahtruth.com/is714a.html (parts 1&2) but in summary they state:

THE ANALYSIS OF ISAIAH 7:14 [HEBREW TEXT] PRESENTED IN THIS ESSAY DEMONSTRATES, BOTH GRAMMATICALLY AND CONTEXTUALLY, THAT NO VALID CONNECTION CAN BE ESTABLISHED BETWEEN THE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF THE "VIRGIN BIRTH" OF JESUS AND ISAIAH 7:14, AND HOW CHRISTIAN APOLOGETIC AND MISSIONARY CLAIMS CONCERNING THIS SO-CALLED "PROOF TEXT" FROM THE HEBREW BIBLE ARE EFFECTIVELY COUNTERED AND REFUTED.

THE CLAIM THAT ISAIAH 7:14 IS THE SO-CALLED "PROOF TEXT" OF THE "VIRGIN BIRTH" OF JESUS IS MERELY AND ATTEMPT TO RETROFIT CHRISTOLOGY INTO THE HEBREW BIBLE. THIS VERSE IS PART OF AN HISTORICAL EVENT, DESCRIBED IN DETAIL IN THE SEVENTH CHAPTER IN THE BOOK OF ISAIAH, SOMETHING THAT HAS ALREADY OCCURRED AND CANNOT APPLY TO AN EVENT CLAIMED TO HAVE TAKEN PLACE SOME SEVEN AND ONE HALF CENTURIES LATER.


It was from this Greek OT text that the Jewish converts (more Jews outside Israel), now Christian, believed in other doctrinal aspects of early Christianity, ie, Purgatory (but, probably best not to go there for now so as to avoid clouding the 7:14 discussion).

The Hebrews at the Jamnia synod (about 100AD) that had convened under Roman authorization decreed the Hebrew OT content. The Hebrews did not want to lose any more Jews to Christian conversions. Therefore, references to a virgin birth only supported Christian doctrine so this was not allowed in the Hebrew text.

The point is important that Protestants use a hybridized OT Bible. It is neither pure Hebrew OT Jewish or pure Greek OT Jewish. The Hebrew Jewish OT has different books and words (Isaiah 7:14 young woman/maiden) and the Greek Jewish OT scripture supports other Christian doctrines that are very much Catholic Christian, yet it supports a “virgin” birth. Therefore, the Protestants will take portions of the Greek text and parts of the Hebrew text to “hybridize” their own Bible to justify their own doctrinal beliefs. If this were not true then they truly would have a strict Hebrew text which would force them to realize that Isaiah 7:14 does not support/fore-shadow any NT virgin references.

Protestants may believe in a virgin birth but they can not support it with OT Hebrew Isaiah 7:14, but Catholic Christians can. It appears that Protestants will historically change Scripture to support their doctrinal beliefs yet complain in the same breath that Catholic Christians added to the Bible…go figure. Peace popeman

[steve]

Hi Popeman,

I think you are mistaken about what Protestants claim. I have not known many Protestants who go around boasting that they have the "true" Old testament text. Nor do they depend entirely on either the Hebrew Masoretic Text nor on the Septuagint, nor on the Dead Sea Scrolls. I think Protestant Old Testament scholars are interested in whatever light may be thrown on the text from any ancient sources, and they examine them all. I would imagine that Catholic Old Testament scholars would do the same thing.

Two different concepts seem to be getting mixed up in your argument: 1) the value of the translation preserved in the Septuagint, and 2) the number of books included in the Septuagint that should be included in our Bibles. It seems to me that our decisions about the first point can be made entirely independently of our decisions about the second.

Catholics and Protestants have much in common in their approach to the Hebrew and Greek Old Testament. For example:

1) Both agree that there is something of benefit to be gained from considering both the Hebrew and the Greek versions, since the New Testament writers clearly respected and quoted from both. Both Catholic and Protestant translators use the Hebrew, rather than the Septuagint, as their primary text in translating the Old Testament.*

2) Both Catholic and Protestants agree that some of the books in the Septuagint do not belong in our Bibles. Catholics accept a few more books than Protestants do, but Catholics reject some of them (e.g., 3rd and 4th Maccabees). Therefore, no one, except the Greek Orthodox, believes that a willingness to quote from the Septuagint translation of scripture necessarily means that one must accept everything in the Septuagint as scripture.

Bottom line: The superiority of The Septuagint translation of Isaiah 7:14 does not tell us anything about how many books belong in the Old Testament.

Peace in Jesus!

Steve

* The following is from the Preface to the New American Version of the Bible (a popular Catholic Bible):

The Massoretic text of 1 and 2 Samuel has in numerous instances been corrected by the more ancient manuscripts Samuel a, b, and c from Cave 4 of Qumran, with the aid of important evidence from the Septuagint in both its oldest form and its Lucianic recension. Fragments of the lost Book of Tobit in Aramaic and in Hebrew, recovered from Cave 4 of Qumran, are in substantial agreement with the Sinaiticus Greek recension used for the translation of this book. The lost original Hebrew text of 1 Maccabees is replaced by its oldest extant form in Greek. Judith, 2 Maccabees, and parts of Esther are also translated from the Greek.

The basic text for the Psalms is not the Massoretic but one which the editors considered closer to the original inspired form, namely the Hebrew text underlying the new Latin Psalter of the Church, the Liber Psalmorum (1944,1 19452 ). Nevertheless they retained full liberty to establish the reading of the original text on sound critical principles.

The translation of Sirach, based on the original Hebrew as far as it is preserved and corrected from the ancient versions, is often interpreted in the light of the traditional Greek text. In the Book of Baruch the basic text is the Greek of the Septuagint, with some readings derived from an underlying Hebrew form no longer extant. In the deuterocanonical sections of Daniel (3:24-91, chapter 13 and chapter 14 [these are Azariah, Susanna and Bel and the Dragon respectively in WORDsearch]), the basic text is the Greek text of Theodotion, occasionally revised according to the Greek text of the Septuagint.

In some instances in the Book of Job, in Proverbs, Sirach, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Hosea, Amos, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zechariah there is good reason to believe that the original order of lines was accidentally disturbed in the transmission of the text. The verse numbers given in such cases are always those of the current Hebrew text, though the arrangement differs. In these instances the textual notes advise the reader of the difficulty. Cases of exceptional dislocation are called to the reader's attention by footnotes.

It seems that the Masoretic and Dead Sea Scrolls manuscripts (Hebrew) were the primary text used for the books contained in the Hebrew Bible, while the Septuagint was primarily used as the source of the Apocryphal, or deuterocanonical books (Tobit, Judith, 1 & 2 Maccabees, Sirach, Baruch, and the extra chapters added to Daniel). Where verse numbers were in dispute, the Hebrew Bible provided the foundational guide to the translators. Thus the Roman Catholic translators followed just about the same rules as do the Protestant translators—taking into consideration all ancient evidence, but following the Hebrew as the basic foundation.

[Jill]

.

[popeman]

First, you read further into my statements then I stated. I never said that Protestant’s “boast” about having the true OT text. That is a skewed presentation of Protestants that will again create anxiety and distasteful rhetoric. I did state that Protestants “believe” they have the true OT text. That is different from boasting which is prideful.

Whether you believe or not that Protestants “believe” and/or go around saying they have the real Bible/Scripture I will have to state that most every Protestants (who is willing to discuss Scripture with a Catholic) believe by default that they have the real, unadulterated Bible compared to Catholics. They are taught throughout Bible studies that Catholics added the Apocrypha (Jewish banned books). Unfortunately, these banned books are over 40 (not just seven) and include the banning of many NT books. When I was a Protestant, I can not remember when a Bible study did not have a question from a former Catholic about the Catholic OT scripture which was denounced by the teacher as false teaching and not substantiated in historical or scriptural truth.

Ok, then let us ask the forum. Who has the truest version of the OT Bible, the Protestants or the Catholics? Naturally, I believe that the Catholic Christian OT Bible is the truest version of OT Scripture because Protestants took several books/parts from the Bible. If you disagree with that tell me why your Protestant OT Bible is more correct. Unless no one answers that question then I will assume that Steve is correct that Protestants do not believe they have the true OT Scripture in their Bible and/or that the Catholic OT text is correct.

Thank you for your input about the New American Bible commentary. Go to the Catholic Catechism for their commentary, as well. Before you go there then allow me to present to you the NIV Bible/Zondervan (Time Between the Testaments) 1984 International Bible Society Commentary which states “The Septuagint quickly became the Bible of the Jews outside Palestine…It later became the Bible of the early Church … The Hebrew canon was not accepted by the early Church, which used the Septuagint … most Protestants decided to follow the Hebrew canon…” (emphasis added) Thank you International Bible Society.

This is what I have been saying over and over but is said very well by a very reputable Protestant source. Protestants (ie, 1500’s) decided to use the Hebrew text which was not accepted by the early Church. I keep going back to this early Church but everyone poo poo’s this as crazy when a Protestant supports actually supports the historical fact. Why would a Christian want to follow a Hebrew text that was canonized by Pharisaical Jews that hated Christians (actually wrote a poem cursing Christians at that time), could only convene under Roman decree and had absolutely no belief that Jesus was God on earth? Go ask Luther and the like, because that is what Protestants are following as the true “word”…. and with that kind of history Protestants are telling Catholics that they do not have the true Bible?!

There are even significant wrong numbers related to God’s temple in the Hebrew text unless its dimensions mean little to Protestant Christians. Wording can have semantics but number are numbers. The Protestant Bible added words to the Lord’s Prayer which is not found in the earliest copies, but only in later copies … and those are Jesus’ words, so who added/changed the Bible? Would a Christian want to follow a Bible that the earliest Christians read and worshipped by or a Bible canon decided on 100 years later and adopted by Protestants 1500 years later because they were mad? Semper Fidelis, Popeman

[popeman]

Dear Karen,

I am not ignoring you but will get to your brothers/sisters soon as the Isiah 7:14 discussion will soon run its course because there are no additional arguments that Protestants can submit as to the validity of Scripture canon. Scripture basically fell from the sky and no where in Protestant history books can they find a council that canonized the books. They will acknowledge the Jewish Council at Jamnia, but basically take the stance that the Bible kind of "gel'ed" together over time and that a Bible of such magnitude just slide along the shadowy sidelines of history with no one writing down what books were authoratative in the Church until 1517ish. That is amazing....talk to you later. Popeman

[steve]

Popeman,

You wrote:

When I was a Protestant, I can not remember when a Bible study did not have a question from a former Catholic about the Catholic OT scripture which was denounced by the teacher as false teaching and not substantiated in historical or scriptural truth.

The position stated by the leaders of those Bible studies does not reflect the Protestant position. Luther included the Apocrypha in his Bible, but considered them less authoritative than the 39 books of the Hebrew Bible. He said that Christians should read the Apocryphal books for their edifying content. Neither he, nor any spokesman for the Protestant movement ever said that they are "false teaching and not substantiated in historical or scriptural truth."

Most Protestants, including myself, could not care less which Old testament—Hebrew or Greek—you use. It is not the presence or absence of the Apocrypha that defines the differences between Catholic and Protestant theology. We could use exactly the same Bibles and would have exactly the same differences in our theologies, so I have known very few Protestants who care to make an fuss over which Bible one should use. The real question is whether you rely on the BIble or on church tradition to derive your beliefs. I would derive the same beliefs I now hold, even if I had never had any but a Catholic Bible to read, because I would choose to go with the Bible's own statements, rather than with the pontifications of fallible human leaders.

I certainly believe that the Old Testament is better off without the Apocryphal books being included in them, but I would not seriously object if someone put them between the covers of the Bible I used. After all, some of my Bibles have maps, dictionaries, concordances, and other non-inspired things stuck in the back. It's no problem to me. The contrast in the quality of the Apocryphal books (often having a legendary or mythical character) as opposed to the books of the Hebrew Bible is so marked, in most cases, that one would have little difficulty discerning the difference between the inspired books and the mere literary productions of the Jews. Even if a person believed the things written in the Apocryphal books without hesitation, there would not be any occasion from their contents to warrant the adoption of specifically Roman Catholic theology.

I think you want to drive this issue into the ground, repeating the same arguments over and over, so as to wear out your opponents. That is no way to discover the truth of a matter, but I will allow you to do so here for a while, unless it gets offensive again. A better policy is to respond to one another's arguments. Your concern with which Bible we use is of so little importance to me that I will let you have the last word and declare victory. It is a hollow one.

[smcllr3]

Who has the truest version of the OT Bible, the Protestants or the Catholics?

I have never considered this question before but if I was to take the opposite position, where would your line of questioning go from there?

And do you think that the Hebrew texts were changed after the Greek translation approx. 200 years before Christ? Or do you think the Greek translators gave the Hebrew interpretation of some of the somewhat different translations found in the Septuagint? Just curious.

Naturally, I believe that the Catholic Christian OT Bible is the truest version of OT Scripture because Protestants took several books/parts from the Bible. If you disagree with that tell me why your Protestant OT Bible is more correct. Unless no one answers that question then I will assume that Steve is correct that Protestants do not believe they have the true OT Scripture in their Bible and/or that the Catholic OT text is correct.

Well I wouldn't ever say I have the more correct anything, but if I were to agree with you, do you suppose it would change my doctrinal beliefs? My wife is Catholic and I have read her Bible often and I never found too many differences. I have just finished memorizing the OT in the NASB and was considering rereading my wife's Bible. I even read Greek and thought that once I was a little better at identifying 1st and 2nd declensions in my Greek New Testament so as to make perfect sense of the cases I would purchase a copy of the Septuagint. Do you think that my doctrinal beliefs will be altered then? I'm asking because it seems that you are implying that I would change my views. If not, then again, where would you go in your line of questioning if I agreed with you about the Catholic OT my being a "Protestant " and all?

Peace,
Sam

[darinhouston]

I have just finished memorizing the OT in the NASB and was considering rereading my wife's Bible

All I can say is "wow!"

[Jill]

.