Conference yukon::christian_v7

    Good question.

    
    try...
    
    LXX + Apocrypha - Greek + English tr. (not sure if it incl. literal
    trans. as well - forgot to ask ;') - I would guess so)
    
    Hendrickson (?) Pub.
    
    Ed. LCL Brenton 
    
    ~$55 Aust. ~= $35 US

    The Apocrypha is the only drawback there.

It's no drawback, it's _part_of_the_Septuagint_.

/john

>                  -< And part of the King James Bible, too! >-
    
    It's not in mine.  It's not inspired either and was left out.
    
    Mike

It would be really refreshing if an opportunity presented itself in this file
for you two to re-ignite this catholic-protestant hostility and neither one
of you rose to that opportunity.

Perhaps next time?

Paul

>It's not in mine.

Yours is an incomplete and unauthorized version of the KJV, then.  The
people who translated the KJV included it.

>It's not inspired either and was left out.

It was there when Jesus read the Septuagint.  It was removed by rabbis
after the crucifixion because it was too strongly supportive of Jesus
and his disciples' teachings.

It was retained in Christian bibles including both the KJV and
Martin Luther's translations until the late 1600s.

Even if you don't believe it is inspired, if it was good enough for
Jesus to read, it should be good enough for you.
    

    Paul I know that all things are possible for Him but this one I
    might have to see to believe.

      I saw *EIGHT* replies in this topic and thought there were a
      slew of different Septuagints for me to choose from!!!

>Even if you don't believe it is inspired, if it was good enough for
>Jesus to read, it should be good enough for you.

    Uh,
    
    can I ask 'why all the heat?'
    
    I mean, if you don't want the Apocrypha, then either don't buy this
    particular edition, or buy it and ignore the Apocrypha.
    
    As for John's comment re: the AV having the Apocrypha in it - the first
    edition did indeed have those books in it. Now, there are a number of
    theories as to why that was the case (from consipracy, to the King
    (James) insisting that they be there).
    
    Whatever your take on them, from being 'Inspired Scripture', to them
    being 'Profitable for Reading' I really don't think they warrant the
    heat and flames that are starting to rear their ugly little heads.
    
    H

>   can I ask 'why all the heat?'

Another question is "why all the avoidance of the facts".  For example:

--> Partial truth:
    
>   As for John's comment re: the AV having the Apocrypha in it - the first
>   edition did indeed have those books in it.

--> Fact:

Editions including it have been continuously published even to this day.
I have a new edition published just this year which includes it; the 1611
edition is available in reproduction; I also own an edition including it
published by Oxford Press in the 1970s.

--> Avoidance of fact:

>Now, there are a number of heories as to why that was the case (from
>consipracy, to the King (James) insisting that they be there).
    
--> Fact:

The "Books called Apocrypha" are in the KJV because the KJV was
produced by the Church of England, and the official doctrine of
the Church of England was then and is now that the books are
"read for example and life and instruction of manners".

Readings from them were then and are still today included in the
lectionary as part of the regular public and private worship of the
Church of England.

/john

    {sheesh}
    
    what I was trying to bring out is that, sure, you can buy editions
    nowadays with the Apocrypha in it (heck, I have one, and a TEV and a
    NAB with Apocrypha), but my comment re: the 'first edition' was that it
    is not a "new thing" that someone thought 'gee, it'd be good to tack on
    these books. might be good for a laugh.' The translation team included
    these books in the First Edition of the Authorised Version.
    
    _avoidence_ of fact??? firstly - my apologies for my 'typo' - the word
    beolw as "heories" was meant to be "theories".
    
>>Now, there are a number of heories as to why that was the case (from
>>consipracy, to the King (James) insisting that they be there).
>    
>--> Fact:
>
>The "Books called Apocrypha" are in the KJV because the KJV was
>produced by the Church of England, and the official doctrine of
>the Church of England was then and is now that the books are
>"read for example and life and instruction of manners".
    
    true.
>
>Readings from them were then and are still today included in the
>lectionary as part of the regular public and private worship of the
>Church of England.
>
    Yes, I have read that these books are to be "read for example and life
    and instruction of manners", but I think it also states that they are
    not at the 'same level' as Inspired Scripture (paragraph nearby?).
    
    The Westminster Confession, which the Church of England backed away
    from endorsing, states it thus:
    
    I.3.The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine
    inspiration, are no part of the canon of Scripture; and therefore are
    of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be any otherwise
    approved, or made use of, than other human writings.
    
    I think, in general, we're pretty much in violent agreement :')
    
    God Bless

>    Yes, I have read that these books are to be "read for example and life
>    and instruction of manners", but I think it also states that they are
>    not at the 'same level' as Inspired Scripture (paragraph nearby?).

No, it does not say that.

It says:

	And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read
	for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth
	it not apply them to establish any doctrine.

Thus they are authoritative with respect to example of life and instruction
of manners.  They are to be read as part of the liturgy; nothing not part
of the Septuagint or the New Testament is ever read as a lesson within the
liturgy.  This is a status no other books have.

/john

      I know I am (in)famous for going off on tangents, but I think
      this dialogue in a topic about asking inputs for Septuagints
      to buy totally bizarre and inappropriate (save for Jill and
      Harry's inputs).
    
    						Tony

	Is it not appropriate to discuss what books form the
	Septuagint in a topic about the Septuagint?

    The matter was settled by the writers themselves:
    
    "Since Nicanor's doings ended in this way, with the city remaining in
    possession of the Hebrews from that time on, I will bring *MY OWN
    STORY* to an end here too.  If it is well written and to the point,
    that is what I wanted; if it is poorly done and mediocre, that is the
    *BEST I COULD DO*.  Just as it is harmful to drink wine alone or water
    alone, whereas mixing wine with water makes a more pleasant drink that
    increases delight, so a *SKILLFULLY COMPOSED STORY* delights the ears
    of those who read the work.  Let this, then, be the end."
    
    - 2 Maccabees 15:37-39, The New American Bible, St. Joseph Edition,
      Catholic Book Publishing Co.

| <<< Note 814.16 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>


| Is it not appropriate to discuss what books form the Septuagint in a topic 
| about the Septuagint?

	Septuagint.... is that a form of spaghetti??? :-)

	And I'm sure that Luke, when he completed his Gospel and
	the Book of Acts under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit
	had much the same opinion of what he had done.

	After all, he did begin:

	For as much as many have taken in hand to set forth in order
	a declaration of those things which are most surely believed
	among us, Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the
	beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
	It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding
	of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order,
	most excellent Theophilus, That thou mightest know the certainty
	of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

/john

    Re: -1
    
    The Holy Spirit doesn't make mistakes.  Luke doesn't sound nearly as
    uninspired as Judah.

Is it too much to hope for to ask you two to take the Yes-it-is, No-it-isn't
"discussion" you're having offline?

Paul 

    John,
    
    re: .14 - and your extract from the 39 Articles of Faith. Sure, it says
    that, but some here reading might get a 'wrong impression' of the
    Anglican church. Better may have been...
    
    [sot]
    VI Of the Sufficiency of the holy Scriptures for salvation.
    
    Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation; so that
    whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be
    required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of Faith,
    or be thought requisite or necessary for salvation. In the name of the
    holy Scripture we do understand those canonical Books of the Old and
    New Testament, or whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.
    
    Of the names and Number of the Canonical BOOKS
    [and it lists the books of the OT - h]
    
    And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example
    of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to
    establish any doctrine; such are following:
    [and it lists the books of the Apocrypha - h]
    
    All the Books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, we
    do receive, and account them Cannonical."
    [eot]
    
    So, as we agreed, the Apocrypha (which we already agreed appears in the
    LXX) is for "example of life and instruction of manners", but (and it's
    a big one) "yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine". i.e.
    they are not to be listed as "the Canonical BOOKS".
    
    So, the commonly acknowledged Old Testament books, and those of the New
    Testament, we don't have a choice - they are Canonical. They are
    sufficient for Salvation.
    
    The Apocrypha, we can take or leave, as they are 'a good read', but not
    'Canonical'. btw - my faves would be I and II Maccabees ;'), although
    Bel and the Dragon is pretty neat too.
    
    Harry

    a pointer to the LXX on the 'Net...
    
    gopher://ccat.sas.upenn.edu:3333/11/Religious/Biblical/LXXMorph
    
    but don't use LYNX - it looks 'orrible ;') Another browser may line the
    columns up better. btw from what I can tell, it's 'transliterated',
    rather than greek characters.

The correct term is "The Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion", not Faith.

>    Of the names and Number of the Canonical BOOKS
>    [and it lists the books of the OT - h]

_and_then_without_a_new_heading_ it goes on:
    
    And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example
    of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to
    establish any doctrine; such are following:
    [and it lists the books of the Apocrypha - h]
    
    All the Books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, we
    do receive, and account them Canonical."
    [eot]

Thus all of the books listed under the heading "Canonical Books" are
canonical.  *Three*more*books*than*even*the*Roman*Catholics*now*use*!
    
>So, as we agreed, the Apocrypha (which we already agreed appears in the
>LXX) is for "example of life and instruction of manners", but (and it's
>a big one) "yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine". i.e.
>they are not to be listed as "the Canonical BOOKS".

No, they _are_ listed as Canonical Books; there is one heading listing
all of the canonical books, immediately following the statement "In the
name of the holy Scripture we do understand those canonical Books of the
Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the
Church."  There is no statement that "the other Books" are not canonical.
The heading does not say "The Canonical Books of the Old Testament"; it
says "The Canonical Books" and it applies until there is another heading.
At the time the Articles were written (1571), the Apocrypha was not yet
separated out from the Old Testament in the Bibles the Church was using.
Note how the Article lists First, Second, Third, and Fourth Esdras,
which are now know as Ezra, Nehemiah, and First and Second Esdras.

The reference to Jerome is important:  Jerome pointed out that these
books, though part of Scripture, were not accepted by the Jews, and
should not be used to establish any doctrine _in_discussions_with_them_.

There never was any doubt _in_the_Church_ that these books are also
authoritative.  The doubt was only outside the Church, and for this
reason we do not use them to establish doctrine.

However, since we use them for "example of life and instruction of manners",
they have, for us, full authority for describing how we should carry out
our life and worship.

/john

    I guess we're veering off the topic of 'Septuagint' and into a topic of
    the 'canonicity of the Apocrypha'. A whole different kittle of fish.
    
    re: "The Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion" - my apologies. I stand
    corrected. Although I had it in front of me, I was concentrating on not
    making any typos (as you no doubt have noticed I am expert at ;') in
    the article we were looking at. Sorry if I caused offense.
    
    re: the rest of it, I find the Westminster Confession (Chapter I) to be
    a clearer document on this subject of the canonicity or otherwise of
    the Apocrypha - but that's probably the 'evangelical' coming out in me
    ;')
    
    H

    have read, and still pondering, 214.*