According to discussion in another thread, Protestants (following Luther) do not hold the Septuagint in high regard, compared to the Masoretic text. My protestant bible notes refer to the LXX quite frequently and it's consulted a lot by the translation teams. Couldn't it be argued the Papal church equaly doesn't hold the septaugint in high regard? Thy've accepted some of the books found in the septaugint but not all of them, for example first esdras, the prayer of manasseh, psalm 151, third macabees, The Eastern churches accept these books, but even they relegate 4th maccabees to an appendix and don't consider it scripture. So it seems to me that none of the three main branches on the church accept books as canonical merely because they are found in the LXX.
Thank you for pursuing those of us who reject Apocrypha as the inspired word of God... it does you credit not to shrink from the truth... 1. "The LXX" can mean two things: 1. the translation of the OT into Greek generally-speaking, or 2. specifically, the OT + Apocrypha in Greek. The New Testament was written in Greek, so it quotes the Old Testament in Greek. That's just classical unity of form. Must we thus assume that every Hebrew mystical or spiritual book translated into Greek by the 72 was divinely-inspired? The Lord Jesus never quoted from the apocrypha, nor did His friends & brethren. We recognise that this is meaningless, since they never quoted from the Song of Songs, either. It does prove that they used the Greek translation of LXX, without the apocrypha. There's nothing wrong with the LXX translation of words; the issue is whether the 72 translators simply lumped together many Hebrew writings, including the inspired word of God. Read the Apocryphal version of Esther, for an example, and note that the apocryphal additions after the beginning of Chapter 10 tell the entire tale over again, with many contradictions against what had literally just been concluded. It's very comical. Catholic Encyclopedia 1913 translation, near the bottom CCEL Philip Schaff translation, near the bottom Cyril, who died A.D. 387, says that we learn from the Church to use the Septuagint translation of the twenty-two books; that is, the Lutheran canon. He advocated the translation of the Seventy, but rejected the apocrypha as additions. 2. Ambrose of Milan very often quotes from the apocrypha, calling it "Scripture". Augustine does the same. Western Fathers generally approved of it readily, whereas the Eastern Fathers (Athanasius) and Westerners intimately acquainted with the East (Hilary, Jerome) denied apocrypha's inclusion in Scripture. Interestingly, none of those Fathers who quoted Apocrypha as Scripture ever seems to have written down what their church received as the canon. Easterners were more diligent in doing this.
I consult the Septuagint from time to time. I have found the following books to be helpful. ...Scottish Monk A New English Translation of the Septuagint. (2007). [A. Pietersma, & B. G. Wright (eds.).]. New York: Oxford University Press. Jobes, K. H., & Silva, M. (2000). Invitation to the Septuagint. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.
Oh yeah, you're right. Rome and the EO do take different approaches to it, as do Greek vs Russian Orthodox (on the matter of 4 Macc., if I remember correctly.). When I was Presbyterian, the LXX was treated as OT, and it wasn't controversial. Here I found it described in not-so-glowing terms, so I was hoping for some clarification. SK, I think we're on the same page.
I appreciate the responses on my recent threads. Anytime I bring up Apocrypha or LXX or Real Presence (or similar points of controversy), I'm genuinely curious. I've really only met one Protestant-minded Anglican in my life (because there aren't many Anglicans in my area anyway). They are not as similar to Presbyterians as I had expected them to be. Some of the positions that are taken on this forum are not things that I've heard before, so threads like these help me learn. I won't be changing my mind about the LXX though. Hope everybody has a blessed Lord's Day.
I will after I calm down from the disaster that was this morning's service...ugh All I'll say is that I truly appreciate ALL kinds of orthodox Anglicans. I'd rather go to a Communion-once-per-month Calvinist Low-Church Anglican service than hang out with heretics. What I saw makes me reconsider the things that I brought up in this very thread...after all, we all revere and submit to the Word of God, whether in Greek or in Hebrew. Accidentally spending time with people who worship Spong and the Jesus Seminar gave me a brand-new appreciation for orthodox Anglicans of all stripes, whether they like the LXX or not. At least none of us dispute the OT's authenticity or truth. Respect for the Bible is one of the things that binds us all together.
Must ... resist urge... to call Calvinists ... heretics... but they are. Pff, one cannot simply be an orthodox anglican and like the apocrypha-filled LXX - unless you mean the translation itself, and the beauty of the words. In which case I can eat my own words. Things that bind us together... respect for the bible... good, that's one thing, at least. I can't wait to become an Anglican!
Adam, I've found the same to be true. This forum has been a bit of a shock. I'd never heard an Anglican say Anglicanism is based on the 5 Solas, just as one example. I asked questions on two other forums and the answers were generally very different than those expressed here. I guess it takes at least 3 forums to get a wider view of Anglican beliefs. I posted a poll for Anglicans on Catholic Answers Forum (CAF):Anglicans, in which of the 5 Solas of the Protestant Reformation do you believe?. Only 3 people said they believe in all 5 Solas (one of the three didn't vote that way on CF.) Six voters said they didn't believe in any of the 5 Solas (though I think one of the voters wasn't Anglican--for some reason everybody wants to vote.) I posted a poll on STR/Christian Forums(CF): Anglicans, in which of the 5 Solas of the Protestant Reformation do you believe?. Had different results there. On both CAF and CF a number of Anglicans said they believe in Prima Scriptura rather than Sola Scriptura---which is very different from many of the beliefs posted here. It's interesting to find out what fellow Anglicans believe. Remember GKC on CAF: he always refers to Anglicans as a "motley crew" and he is Anglican. We are a Communion with quite a diversity in beliefs. Anna
Don't forget the Ethiopian Orthodox they also include the book of Enoch... they have the broader canon and narrow canon...