How Many Books Are in the Bible?

Bible.org ^ | Erwin W. Lutzer , M.A., LL.D.

[Gamecock]

How Many Books Are in the Bible?

By: Erwin W. Lutzer , M.A., LL.D. (Bio)

Also available in:

from
The Doctrines That Divide¹
Erwin W. Lutzer

Even the most casual Bible student knows that there are more books in the Catholic Bible than in the one used by Protestants. Where did these differences originate? On what basis were some books selected to be in the Bible, and why were others rejected?

Upon reflection, we could expect that there would be some dispute regarding these matters. After all, the Bible did not come down from heaven bound in beautiful leather and adorned with gold gilded pages. It is a very human book that reflects the styles of the writers and the cultural setting of the times. Yet, it is also a divine book, inspired by God, and therefore free from error in the original manuscripts. Like Christ who was truly God and truly man, so the Bible has a dual authorship. Questions about which books meet this criterion are to be expected.

The word canon comes from the Greek word kanon which means a ruler or measuring rod. In a metaphorical sense, it came to refer to the standard by which various books of the Bible were judged as worthy of being called the Word of God. Within time, the word kanon was applied to the books themselves; Athanasius is the first one known to have used “canon” in such a context.

How the Books Were Collected

Some of the Old Testament books were immediately recognized as authoritative. Moses, after he wrote a book, put it in the Ark of the Covenant (Deut. 31:24-26). After the temple was built, the sacred writings were kept there (2 Kings 22:18). Early on, God commanded the kings to write for themselves a copy of the law. “And he shall read it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the Lord his God” (Deut. 17:19). As the prophets spoke God’s word, saying, “Thus saith the Lord,” they also recognized that their message had to be recorded for future generations.

The Jews realized that special revelation ceased with the prophet Malachi (c. 400 B.C.). In the Talmud (a handbook of Jewish traditions) we read, “Up to this point [the time of Alexander the Great] the prophets prophesied through the Holy Spirit; from this time onward incline thine ear and listen to the sayings of the wise.”

But what determined whether a book was considered part of the canon? Obviously, there were other books in existence that did not merit classification with the sacred writings. Examples are “The Book of the Wars of the Lord” (Num. 21:14) and “The Book of Jashar” (Josh. 10:13).

The criterion was, first, that the book had to agree with the Torah, the first five books of Moses. But this was not the only test. Some books that agreed with the Torah were also excluded. For example, Elijah wrote a book that likely met this standard; yet it was not a part of the canon. And, of course, we must ask how the Torah itself became accepted.

Second, and most important, these books were accepted because they were believed to be inspired by God. In other words, they were selected because they were recognized as having divine authority. This is not to say that the Jews gave these books their authority; these books were believed to have inherent authority. If a book is inspired by God, it would have authority whether men recognized it or not. A jeweler may recognize an authentic diamond, but his recognition does not make it so.

We must guard against the notion that the church has a right to make a book canonical. But at best the nation Israel or church body can only recognize a book as authoritative because it is inspired of God.

The Discovery of Canonicity

But how was canonicity discovered? First, the books had the ring of self-vindicating authority. Moses claimed to be the mouthpiece of God. The Old Testament prophets repeatedly said, “And the word of the Lord came to me.” The lives of the prophets and the strong affirmation that their message came from God was accepted by the Jewish nation.

This explains why the canonicity of the Book of Esther was, for a time, in doubt. Since the name of God does not appear in the book, some thought it lacked self-vindicating authority. But closer inspection showed that the providence of God was so evident in the story that it had the authenticity that gave it acceptance.

A second test was that of authorship. it had to have been written by a man of God. Was the author, they asked, a spokesman for “redemptive revelation,” either a prophet in the Old Testament times or an apostle in the new?

For example, Paul in the New Testament argued that his message was authoritative because he was an apostle, “not sent from men, nor through the agency of man, but through Jesus Christ, and God the Father” (Gal. 1:1). The Book of 2 Peter was disputed in the early church because some doubted that it had been written by Peter. The writing style appeared different from 1 Peter, hence the doubt. But within time the church was convinced that Peter the apostle was the author, therefore the book was accepted.

Yet in other instances the identity of the author was not always determinative. For example, the authorship of the Book of Hebrews is unknown, but the book was accepted without serious questioning because it bears the unmistakable stamp of the transforming power of God.

Of course, the book had to be consistent with previous revelation. Martin Luther thought that James taught salvation by works so he questioned its position in the canon. Later, when he revised his preface to the book, he dropped his criticism. A closer reading indicates that James does not contradict Paul’s teaching of salvation by faith. The early church was quite correct in receiving it as authoritative.

There is evidence that when an inspired book was written, it enjoyed immediate acceptance. For example, Peter accepted the epistles of Paul as being worthy of recognition as inspired Scripture (2 Pet. 3:16). Thus, the canon of the New Testament formed gradually as the books were written. Because communication was cumbersome in biblical times, it is understandable that the complete list of authoritative books was not agreed upon until a few centuries had passed. The Books of Revelation and 3 John were not immediately accepted, in part because they were unknown in some parts of the New Testament world. As their circulation grew, so did the recognition that they had the marks of divine inspiration.

The bottom line, of course, is that the books of the Bible were recognized as authoritative by the people of God. There is little doubt that we must exercise faith that God superintended his Word so that only inspired books were chosen to be in the canon. Equally important is the fact that the final list of books was not chosen by a synod or council of the church. These met to ratify the books that the people of God had already chosen.

The Apocrypha

Both the Roman Catholic and Protestant Bibles have thirty-nine books in the Old Testament and twenty-seven in the New. The difference is that a Roman Catholic Bible has an additional eleven books inserted between the Testaments. Where did these books come from?

To begin, we must realize that both branches of Christendom acknowledge the existence of books that are false writings that have never laid serious claim to canonicity. The Book of Enoch and The Assumption of Moses are known to have existed, but all agree that they lack the stamp of inspiration. In the New Testament the Shepherd of Hermas was thought by some to be authoritative, so it hovered around the canon for sometime before it was dismissed as a forgery

But there was another group of books that are accepted by the Roman Catholic church but rejected by Protestants. These books originated in a canon in Alexandria in Egypt. It was in this city in 250 B.C. that the Old Testament was translated into Greek and called the Septuagint, meaning “seventy.” (Allegedly the translation was made in seventy days utilizing seventy scholars.) This explains why some of the earliest manuscripts of the Septuagint that exist today (dating back to the fourth century) contain these additional books.

These books, commonly called the Apocrypha (the word means “hidden”), are interwoven among the books of the Old Testament. In all, there are fifteen books, eleven of which are accepted as canonical by the Roman Catholic church. But because four of the eleven are combined with Old Testament books, the Douay Version contains only seven additional books in its table of contents.

There are several reasons why the Roman Catholic church considers the wider Alexandrian list of books to be canonical. Briefly, they are (1) the New Testament quotes mostly from the Septuagint, which contained the Apocrypha. Then, (2) some of the early church fathers accepted the Apocrypha as canonical—Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria for example. Also, (3) Augustine and the great councils of Hippo and Carthage, which he led, are said to have accepted them. Finally, (4) the Council of Trent called to respond to the inroads of the Reformation pronounced them canonical in A.D. 1546. The council said that if anyone does not receive these books in all of their parts, “let him be anathema.”

Reasons to Reject the Apocrypha

Protestants give numerous reasons for rejecting these additional books:²

1. Though there are some allusions to the apocryphal books by New Testament writers (Hebrews 11:35 compares with 2 Maccabees 7, 12) there is no direct quote from them. Also, no New Testament writer ever refers to any of these fourteen or fifteen books as authoritative. Quotes from the accepted books are usually introduced by the phrase, “It is written,” or the passage is quoted to prove a point. But never do the New Testament writers quote the Apocrypha in this way.

2. There is no evidence that the books were in the Septuagint as early as the time of Christ. Remember, the earliest manuscripts that have them date back to the fourth century A.D. Even if they were in the Septuagint at this early date, it is noteworthy that neither Christ nor the apostles ever quoted from them.

3. Though some of the early leaders of the church accepted them, many did not—Athanasius, Origen, and Jerome, to name a few.

4. The evidence that Augustine accepted the Apocrypha is at best ambiguous. For one thing, he omits Baruch and includes 1 Esdras, thus accepting one and rejecting another in contrast to the Council of Trent. For another, he seemed to change his mind later about the validity of the Apocrypha.

Jerome, while making a Latin translation of the Bible, disputed with Augustine about the value of these additional books. Though Jerome did not want to translate them, he eventually made a hurried translation of them but kept them separate from his translation of the Bible. However, after his death, these books were brought into his Latin translation.

Augustine, as mentioned, argued in favor of the Apocrypha, though he later seemed to give them a kind of secondary canonicity. His testimony, though important, is not entirely clear.

5. Even the Roman Catholic church made a distinction between the Apocrypha and the other books of the Bible prior to the Reformation. For example, Cardinal Cajetan, who opposed Luther at Augsburg, in 1518 published A Commentary on all the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament. His commentary, however, did not include the Apocrypha.

6. The first official council of the Roman Catholic church to ratify these books was at the Council of Trent in 1546, only twenty-nine years after Luther posted his ninety-five theses on the door of the church at Wittenberg. The acceptance of these books at this time was convenient since the books were being quoted against Luther. For example, 2 Maccabees speaks of prayers for the dead (2 Macc. 12:45-46) and another book teaches salvation by works (Tob. 12:19).

Even so, the Roman church accepted only eleven of the fifteen books; we naturally would expect that these books, since they were together for so many centuries, would be either accepted or rejected together.

7. The content of the Apocrypha is sub-biblical. Some of the stories are clearly fanciful. Bel and the Dragon, Tobit, and Judith have the earmarks of legend; the authors of these books even give hints along the way that the stories are not to be taken seriously.

What is more, these books have historical errors. It is claimed that Tobit was alive when the Assyrians conquered Israel in 722 B.C. and also when Jeroboam revolted against Judah in 931 B.C., which would make him at least 209 years old; yet according to the account, he died when he was only 158 years. The Book of Judith speaks of Nebuchadnezzar reigning in Nineveh instead of Babylon.

These inaccuracies are inconsistent with the doctrine of inspiration which teaches that when God inspires a book it is free from all errors.

8. Finally, and most important, we must remember that the Apocrypha was never part of the Old Testament Hebrew canon. When Christ was on earth, he frequently quoted from the Old Testament but never from the Apocryphal books because they were never a part of the Hebrew canon.

In Christ’s time, there were twenty-two books in the Old Testament, but the content was identical to the thirty-nine books in our present Old Testament (several of the books in the Hebrew Bible were combined, which accounts for the different figure). Genesis was the first book in the Hebrew canon and 2 Chronicles was the last. On at least one occasion, Christ referred specifically to the content of the Hebrew canon when he said:

Therefore, behold, I am sending you prophets and wise men and scribes; some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city, that upon you may fall the guilt of all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar (Matt. 23:34-35)

In the Hebrew canon, the first book of the Bible was Genesis, where the death of Abel is recorded, and the last book was 2 Chronicles where near the end of the book the murder of Zechariah is described (24:21). In between these two events lay the entire content of the Old Testament. He assumed it ended with the Hebrew Scriptures and not the Apocrypha.

The Apocryphal books were written in Greek after the close of the Old Testament canon. Jewish scholars agree that chronologically Malachi was the last book of the Old Testament canon. The books of the Apocrypha were evidently written about 200 B.C. and occur only in Greek manuscripts of the Old Testament. Since Christ accepted only the books we have in our Old Testament today, we have no reason to add to their number.

The Lost Books

Occasionally we hear references to the so-called lost books of the Bible, books that some people think have been hidden from the general populace. In 1979, Bell Publishing Company of New York came out with a book entitled The Lost Books of the Bible. On the flyleaf it says that these books were not among those chosen to comprise the Bible, and “They were suppressed by the church, and for over fifteen hundred years were shrouded in secrecy.”³

These books are not really as secret as the authors imply. New Testament scholars have been well aware of their existence throughout the centuries, though perhaps these books were not accessible to the common man. Their credibility is rejected by both Catholics and Protestants.

These books include stories about the birth of Mary and of Christ. Also there are a dozen or more stories that took place during Christ’s lifetime. Three or four purport to relate to events in the Old Testament.

These books never even vied for a place in the canon. Unlike some other books that were actually disputed (the Shepherd of Hermas, for example), these books were recognized as legends from the beginning. These “forgotten books” are so obviously inferior to those in our Bible that they cannot be taken seriously.

Indeed, in the preface, Dr. Frank Crane admitted the point by saying that legends and apocryphal stories surround all great men such as Napoleon, Charlemagne, and Julius Caesar, so we can also expect that tales would grow up around Christ. He went on to say that Christ appealed to the “fictional minds” of his day. These writers, Crane admitted, do not pretend to write down what is strictly true, but tinge all events with their imagination.

Finally, Crane said the common man can now make his own decision as to whether the early church did right in rejecting these books. He did not hesitate to say that common sense itself will show the superiority of the accepted canonical books.

I agree. Should there be any doubt about the accepted books, the best solution would be to read these so-called lost books. And for that matter, one should also read those books that laid more serious claim to canonicity. They also are so inferior to the books of the New Testament that we become convinced that the early church did not err.

In the upper room, Christ promised that the Holy Spirit would help them recall his teachings. “When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, He Will bear witness of Me” (John 15:26). That was a tacit confirmation of the New Testament that still needed to be written. The early believers recognized those writings that were either written by an apostle or by someone personally acquainted with one. After the apostolic period, no more books could claim the stamp of divine authority.

The Book of Revelation ends with a warning:

I testify to everyone who bears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to then; God shall add to him the plagues which are written in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book (Rev. 22.18-19)

Although these words refer specifically to the Book of Revelation and not to the New Testament as a whole (there were still questions as to which books were properly in the New Testament when Revelation was penned), yet they are a warning to the many false cults who have claimed to add to God’s Word.

In our present New Testament we have the final word from God until our Lord returns and the Bible as we know it will no longer be necessary.

1 “How Many Books Are in the Bible?” is chapter 8 from Erwin Lutzer’s book, The Doctrines That Divide and is used by permission of the publisher. No additional use of this material may be made without written permission of Kregel Publications, Grand Rapids, MI.

2 Norman Geisler and William Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible (Chicago: Moody Press, 1986). 170-177.

3 The Lost Books of the Bible (New York: Bell Publishing Co., 1979).

---

[Prowler Fowler]

Ahhhh, all that were allowed to be published.

[Gamecock]

Companion to Is the Bible Enough?

[narses]

As a faithful Catholic, I am placing this thread on IGNORE If you are Catholic, be aware that this thread contains slanders about the Catholic Church. We should not reward invincibly ignorant anti-Catholic bigots by engaging them in futile debate. Therefore, please do not respond to any of the lies about the Catholic Church contained on this thread. Saint Paul pray for those who hate the Church.

[PurpleMan]

“But how was canonicity discovered? First, the books had the ring of self-vindicating authority.”

Authenticity because of “a ring”??

“...the books of the Bible were recognized as authoritative by the people of God...”

Seems like the logic is that of a self-licking ice cream cone

Gotta do better than that

[Gamecock]

YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!

[driftdiver]

I don’t see any anti-catholic bigotry? Take your fingers outta your years and discuss it rationally.

[beelzepug]

The Apocryphal books are also used, as instructional texts, by the Anglican churches, and I believe by most orthodox churches although, I couldn’t swear to that. This just sounds like more anti-Catholic garbage to me. Some Protestants aren’t content to have separated from the Catholic church. They must continue to defame it, as well. Like those nasty little Jack Chick tracts that some fool used to leave on the lunchroom tables at work.

[Lee N. Field]

As a faithful Catholic, I am placing this thread on IGNORE

Fine, whatever.

[netmilsmom]

LOVE the graphic!
It’s a pity that none of the people that post these types of threads realize that none of the Catholic FReepers give a hoot about their opinions.

They just seem to always yell, “Talk to me!!!! Pay attention to ME!!!”

Reminds me of a child who’s been left in Daycare too long.

[Gamecock]

Did it ever occur to you that we don’t care?

[driftdiver]

“They just seem to always yell, “Talk to me!!!! Pay attention to ME!!!””

Not really, do you have any examples of that or are you just defaming people at random?

[Petronski]

Seventy-three.

Next question.

[SkyPilot]

Sixty six.

People can choose to believe weird books where Christ as a child heals a battered mule.

But then again, people can choose to vote for Barack Obama.

It's a free country (for now).

[thefrankbaum]

The content of the Apocrypha is sub-biblical. Some of the stories are clearly fanciful. Bel and the Dragon, Tobit, and Judith have the earmarks of legend; the authors of these books even give hints along the way that the stories are not to be taken seriously.

Yeah, unlike the Song of Songs. That isn't fanciful at all. And Jesus never used stories to illustrate a point. /sarc

[AUsome Joy]

So why did’t you follow your own advice?

I hadn’t planned to read this article until you yelled, “Ignore!!” It is not anti-Catholic. It explains to Protestants why we don’t have those books in our Bible. Did you even read it? What are you so afraid of?

If anything I should be offended that you are calling Protestants “bigots”.

[TrevorSnowsrap]

And let’s not forget the distinct canons of the various Orthodox churches such as the Ethipian, Syriac, Greek, and Aermenian.

[Reddy]

bookmark to read later

[count-your-change]

Almighty Jehovah could certainly cause what He wanted in His Word to be preserved and cause what he wanted to be rejected.
Writers such as Irenaeus and Origen either quoted or mentioned most of the present day books of the Bible during the second and third century A.D.
The handful of books not immediately accepted were later but never the dishonest, contradictory, and uninspired Apocrypha.

[greyfoxx39]

The mormon prophets aren’t through revelating yet. The count could change momentarily.

[Lee N. Field]

people that post these types of threads realize that none of the Catholic FReepers give a hoot about their opinions.

Then they sure have a strange way of showing their utter disinterest.

[Gamecock]

Official Spokesperson of FRCatholics?

[Lee N. Field]

But then again, people can choose to vote for Barack Obama.

It's a free country (for now).

Give it 5 years. We'll be asked to burn a pinch of incense, purely ceremonial you know, to the genius of Deus Obama. Or your SSN gets disabled and the Obama Youth Change Squads burn your house.

[Lee N. Field]

You’d think. You don’t see us screaming, or whining to the moderators.

[netmilsmom]

You mean like post 10?

[SkyPilot]

The mormon prophets aren’t through revelating yet. The count could change momentarily

I forgot. The Christian books represent a religion that Joe said are an (what did Joseph Smith say..........)

..................hmmmmmmmmmmmmm

"My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right — and which I should join. I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong, and the personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in His sight: that those professors were all corrupt . . ." (Joseph Smith, "History of the Church, Vol. 1, page 5-6.)

I am happy to report I don't belong to Joe's little Cult.

[SkyPilot]

Give it 5 years. We'll be asked to burn a pinch of incense, purely ceremonial you know, to the genius of Deus Obama. Or your SSN gets disabled and the Obama Youth Change Squads burn your house.

The Anti-Christ will DEMAND it.

[driftdiver]

Yes kinda like post 10 where you were shouting “look at me, look at me”

[wmfights]

What a great thread to post. I'm looking forward to reading it.

Thank You.

[bdeaner]

Here is a Catholic defense of the Deuterocanonicals.

Usually in debates between Catholics and Protestants on this issue, it comes down to a shouting match with Protestants citing Rev. 22:18 and Catholic retorting with Rev. 22:19. This is a silly argument on both sides, in actuality, because when John is warning against adding or subtracting from the "book," he's talking about the Book of Revelations, not the whole Bible. This article had the good sense to make this qualification, even if only half-heartedly.

What makes the above argument sillier is that, since the Bible was not canonized until centuries after Christ, none of the apostles knew about, nor referenced the Bible. The list of books in the Bible wasn't established until 382 A.D., and even still, the books weren't compiled into a single volume -- the "Bible" -- until the printing press came along. So much for that debate.

Also, even at the time of Christ, the Jewish people had not established a canonical list of books for the Bible. In fact, what books were accepted depended on who you asked. If you asked a Samaritan or a Sadducee, they'd tell you the sacred writings on the law were canonical, but not the other books, which were accepted by the Pharisees. Other Jews used the Septuagint, a Greek version of the Bible, which include the seven deuterocanonicals under dispute. It wasn't until around the 3rd century that Jews began to develop a canonical list of books in the Bible. But even today, Ethiopian Jews use the same OT as the Catholics, with all of the deuterocanonicals.

Contrary to the article, the deuterocanonicals were NOT added at the Council of Trent (1546) to justify Catholic doctrinal inventions. This is a claim made in error. On the contrary, the canonical books, including the deuterocanonicals, as they exist today in the Catholic version of the Bible, was established by the Council of Rome in 382. That decision was ratified at Hippo (393), Carthage (397, 419), II Nicea (787), Florence (1442), and, finally, Trent (1546).

Martin Luther even included these deuterocanonicals in the first German translation. Both the first King James version of the Bible and the Gutenberg Bible contained the deuterocanonicals. Luther only downgraded the deuterocanonicals later, in 1519, as a way of arguing against Johannes Eck's scriptural basis for the doctrine on purgatory. Luther based this claim on the idea that the deuterocanonicals are not referenced by the New Testament authors. But that's a lame argument, because the same can be said for other Old Testament books, including Song of Songs.

When in doubt, look to the early Church Fathers. What did they read? The Septuagint, which includes the deuterocanonicals! This was duly noted by the Protestant historian J.N.D. Kelly, for example.

[onedoug]

Five in Torah.

[Salvation]

Hope you aren't yelling at the Catholic point of view on this question. For those who are open-minded and wish do to more studying, here are some links:

The Complete Bible: Why Catholics Have Seven More Books [Ecumenical]

Beginning Catholic: Books of the Catholic Bible: The Complete Scriptures [Ecumenical]

Beginning Catholic: When Was The Bible Written? [Ecumenical]

The Complete Bible: Why Catholics Have Seven More Books [Ecumenical]

U.S. among most Bible-literate nations: poll

Bible Lovers Not Defined by Denomination, Politics

Dei Verbum (Catholics and the Bible)

Vatican Offers Rich Online Source of Bible Commentary

Clergy Congregation Takes Bible Online

Knowing Mary Through the Bible: Mary's Last Words

A Bible Teaser For You... (for everyone :-)

Knowing Mary Through the Bible: New Wine, New Eve

Return of Devil's Bible to Prague draws crowds

Catholic and Protestant Bibles: What is the Difference?

Glimpsing Words, Practices, or Beliefs Unique to Catholicism [Bible Trivia]

Should We Take the Bible Literally or Figuratively?

Church and the Bible(Caatholic Caucus)

Doctrinal Concordance of the Bible [What Catholics Believe from the Bible] Catholic Caucus

Pope Urges Prayerful Reading of Bible

Catholic Caucus: It's the Church's Bible

How Tradition Gave Us the Bible

The Church or the Bible

[Salvation]

Pope to lead marathon Bible reading on Italian TV

[Elsie]

Bah!

That ‘bible’ you Gentiles use was corrupted through the ages.

Come to the Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter Day Saints to get the LATEST Truth from GOD.

We have a LIVING PROPET that GOD speaks to directly, and he then tells us the Good News!

—MormonDude(’tis so sweet to trust Joseph’s words...)

[Iscool]

Saint Paul pray for those who hate the Church.

That ain't the Apostle Paul and he don't know your Church...

[Iscool]

If you asked a Samaritan or a Sadducee, they'd tell you the sacred writings on the law were canonical, but not the other books, which were accepted by the Pharisees.

Why would someone ask a Samaritan or a Sadducee???

[Iscool]

Other Jews used the Septuagint, a Greek version of the Bible, which include the seven deuterocanonicals under dispute.

What other religious Jews were there besides the Pharisees and Sadducees???

It wasn't until around the 3rd century that Jews began to develop a canonical list of books in the Bible.

Here's the OT Canon acknowledged by Jesus...

Luk 24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

The Jews knew 400 years before Jesus showed up what the OT Canon was...

But even today, Ethiopian Jews use the same OT as the Catholics, with all of the deuterocanonicals.

What would you expect??? It's an African bible...

[bdeaner]

What other religious Jews were there besides the Pharisees and Sadducees?

Essenes, Zealots...

Here's the OT Canon acknowledged by Jesus... Luke 24:44

Yes, the sacred writings were divided by Jews into three parts: the law, the prophets, and the writings, which were canonized in that order. At the time of Christ, only the law had been canonized, but the Pharisses accepted all three.

The Jews knew 400 years before Christ was the OT canon was.

Sorry, no. Only some for some Jews. Also, note -- the Septuagint is the OT referenced in the NT. The Septuagint, that is, which contained the deuterocanonicals, including the apocrypha. See here.

[Elsie]

 

Also, note -- the Septuagint is the OT referenced in the NT.

 

---

Well... definitely SOME kind of 'scripture' was sure referenced in the NT!

---

 

 

NIV John 20:9
   (They still did not understand from Scripture that Jesus had to rise from the dead.)

 

 

 

NIV Luke 24:26-28
 26.  Did not the Christ  have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?"
 27.  And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, He explained to them what was said in all the

 28.  the Scriptures concerning himself.

 

 

NIV Luke 24:32
   They asked each other, "Were not our hearts burning within us while he talked with us on the road and opened the Scriptures to us?"

 

NIV John 2:22
   After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the Scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken.

 

NIV John 5:39-47
 39.  You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me,
 40.  yet you refuse to come to me to have life.
 41.  "I do not accept praise from men,
 42.  but I know you. I know that you do not have the love of God in your hearts.
 43.  I have come in my Father's name, and you do not accept me; but if someone else comes in his own name, you will accept him.
 44.  How can you believe if you accept praise from one another, yet make no effort to obtain the praise that comes from the only God ?
 45.  "But do not think I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses, on whom your hopes are set.
 46.  If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me.
 47.  But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?"

 

NIV John 7:42-43
 42.  Does not the Scripture say that the Christ will come from David's family and from Bethlehem, the town where David lived?"
 43.  Thus the people were divided because of Jesus.

 

 

NIV Acts 8:26-35
 26.  Now an angel of the Lord said to Philip, "Go south to the road--the desert road--that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza."
 27.  So he started out, and on his way he met an Ethiopian eunuch, an important official in charge of all the treasury of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians. This man had gone to Jerusalem to worship,
 28.  and on his way home was sitting in his chariot reading the book of Isaiah the prophet.
 29.  The Spirit told Philip, "Go to that chariot and stay near it."
 30.  Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. "Do you understand what you are reading?" Philip asked.
 31.  "How can I," he said, "unless someone explains it to me?" So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.
 32.  The eunuch was reading this passage of Scripture: "He was led like a sheep to the slaughter, and as a lamb before the shearer is silent, so he did not open his mouth.
 33.  In his humiliation he was deprived of justice. Who can speak of his descendants? For his life was taken from the earth."
 34.  The eunuch asked Philip, "Tell me, please, who is the prophet talking about, himself or someone else?"
 35.  Then Philip began with that very passage of Scripture and told him the good news about Jesus.

 

 

NIV Matthew 21:42-43
 42.  Jesus said to them, "Have you never read in the Scriptures: "`The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone ; the Lord has done this, and it is marvelous in our eyes' ?
 43.  "Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit.

[CommieCutter]

66 books. Correct?

[bdeaner]

Well... definitely SOME kind of 'scripture' was sure referenced in the NT!

2/3 of references to OT in NT are references to the Septuagint. See here.

The Septuagint contains the deuterocanonicals, including the "Apocrypha" -- the OT canonized and still used today by the Catholic Church.

[Iscool]

Also, note -- the Septuagint is the OT referenced in the NT.

Nope...The Septuagint was authored probably by Eusebius, or, possibly by Origen...And that's why it matches the Hebrew OT in a few places where the Greek NT doesn't...They had copies of the Hebrew OT setting in front of them when they wrote it...

[dangus]

>> 1. Though there are some allusions to the apocryphal books by New Testament writers (Hebrews 11:35 compares with 2 Maccabees 7, 12) there is no direct quote from them. Also, no New Testament writer ever refers to any of these fourteen or fifteen books as authoritative. Quotes from the accepted books are usually introduced by the phrase, “It is written,” or the passage is quoted to prove a point. But never do the New Testament writers quote the Apocrypha in this way. <<

The “deueterocanonicals” (a non-derogatory term for the Catholic books) are all from a category of biblical books which were written late in biblical history, including Chronicles, Esther, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, Song of Songs, etc. Since many Jews at the time of Christ rejected this entire category (called, “The Scrolls”), MOST books in this category, including those accepted by Protestants, are never cited directly by the New Testament.

2. There is no evidence that the books were in the Septuagint as early as the time of Christ. Remember, the earliest manuscripts that have them date back to the fourth century A.D. Even if they were in the Septuagint at this early date, it is noteworthy that neither Christ nor the apostles ever quoted from them.

It’s true that no Septuagint extant at the time of Christ included these books; in that sense, there is no “evidence.” However, there are no Septuagints extant from the time of Christ at all. However, other ancient collections, which are much more similar to the Septuagint (such as the Dead Sea Scrolls’ biblical collections) do include these books.

>> 3. Though some of the early leaders of the church accepted them, many did not—Athanasius, Origen, and Jerome, to name a few. <<

Origen, Athanasius, and Jerome all were compiling comparisons of Hebrew and Greek texts (in Origen’s case, he was comparing SIX langauges.) These books had been rejected by the Jews (because they were too obviously predicting the imminent coming of the Christ!), so no Hebrew version was available. That hardly means they were saying the books shouldn’t be regarded as scriptural. In fact, Jerome calls anyone who would make that argument, “a fool or a slanderer.” Several later authors also argued that these books should not be used to impress Christianity upon Jews; I’ve seen sources list these statements as evidence of rejection, even though these sources were using the Gregorian mass (which included these books!)

>> 4. The evidence that Augustine accepted the Apocrypha is at best ambiguous. For one thing, he omits Baruch and includes 1 Esdras, thus accepting one and rejecting another in contrast to the Council of Trent. For another, he seemed to change his mind later about the validity of the Apocrypha. <<

The Book of Baruch was often regarded as part of the Book of Jeremiah, so Augustine’s omission of it from a list certainly reflects this fact. There was some ambiguity of the use of “1 Esdras (Greek Ezra)” versus “2 Esdras (Ezra)” and “3 Esdras (Nehemiah)”, as some ancient churches used the longer version (Ezra-Nehemiah), and others used the shorter version. The Council of Trent found that 1 Esdras contained no significant material found in neither 2 Esdras or 3 Esdras, so it was not included separately in it’s list of books which must be defended by Christians.

>> Jerome, while making a Latin translation of the Bible, disputed with Augustine about the value of these additional books. Though Jerome did not want to translate them, he eventually made a hurried translation of them but kept them separate from his translation of the Bible. However, after his death, these books were brought into his Latin translation. <<

This makes interpretation of what St. Jerome “wanted to do” which contradicts what St. Jerome did and what he stated his purposes were.

>> Augustine, as mentioned, argued in favor of the Apocrypha, though he later seemed to give them a kind of secondary canonicity. His testimony, though important, is not entirely clear. <<

translation: the author admits that his position is too tentative to defend.

>> 5. Even the Roman Catholic church made a distinction between the Apocrypha and the other books of the Bible prior to the Reformation. For example, Cardinal Cajetan, who opposed Luther at Augsburg, in 1518 published A Commentary on all the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament. His commentary, however, did not include the Apocrypha. <<

I’m not familiar enough to defend Cdl. Cajetan on this point, but will certainly emphasize that Cdl. Cajetan had far less authority that the various regional councils which universally decided the biblical canon prior to Trent, or the ecumenical council of Trent itself.

>> 6. The first official council of the Roman Catholic church to ratify these books was at the Council of Trent in 1546, only twenty-nine years after Luther posted his ninety-five theses on the door of the church at Wittenberg. The acceptance of these books at this time was convenient since the books were being quoted against Luther. For example, 2 Maccabees speaks of prayers for the dead (2 Macc. 12:45-46) and another book teaches salvation by works (Tob. 12:19). Even so, the Roman church accepted only eleven of the fifteen books; we naturally would expect that these books, since they were together for so many centuries, would be either accepted or rejected together. <<

Here, the author gravely humiliates himself, for in fact only SEVEN of the deuterocanonicals were Old testament works. FOURTEEN were defended against Luther’s attacks, including Revelations, Hebrews, 2-3 John, 1-2 Peter and James. The only work which had had a quasi-canonical status was, as noted, the book of Greek Ezra.

7. >> The content of the Apocrypha is sub-biblical. Some of the stories are clearly fanciful. Bel and the Dragon, Tobit, and Judith have the earmarks of legend; the authors of these books even give hints along the way that the stories are not to be taken seriously.

What is more, these books have historical errors. It is claimed that Tobit was alive when the Assyrians conquered Israel in 722 B.C. and also when Jeroboam revolted against Judah in 931 B.C., which would make him at least 209 years old; yet according to the account, he died when he was only 158 years. The Book of Judith speaks of Nebuchadnezzar reigning in Nineveh instead of Babylon.

These inaccuracies are inconsistent with the doctrine of inspiration which teaches that when God inspires a book it is free from all errors. <<

Tobit and Judith certainly belong to the same category of bibilical literature as Job, Esther and Ruth. These arguments could certainly be made against Job and Esther, and Genesis and Joshua as well.

>> 8. Finally, and most important, we must remember that the Apocrypha was never part of the Old Testament Hebrew canon. When Christ was on earth, he frequently quoted from the Old Testament but never from the Apocryphal books because they were never a part of the Hebrew canon. <<

How is this argument not a restatement of the first? At the time of Christ, there were various groups: The Saducees, who accepted only the Books of Moses (Torah); the Pharisees, who accepted the Books of Moses, plus the books of the Prophets (which included Psalms but excluded Daniel)(”the Nevi’im”); and various popular movements which accepted both these groups, plus numerous writings collectively called “the Ketuvim.” These books were considered scripture by popular acclaim. Decades after Christ, the Sanhedrin Jews admitted the TaNaKh, which is a contraction of Torah-Nevi’im-Ketuvim. This canon, however, was invented AFTER Christ, specifically to EXCLUDE sources seen as helping the ministry of Christ.

>> The Apocryphal books were written in Greek after the close of the Old Testament canon. Jewish scholars agree that chronologically Malachi was the last book of the Old Testament canon. The books of the Apocrypha were evidently written about 200 B.C. and occur only in Greek manuscripts of the Old Testament.

>> Since Christ accepted only the books we have in our Old Testament today, we have no reason to add to their number. <<

Since the predicate of this argument is disproven, it is not reasonable to accept the conclusion.

[opus86]

bump for later read

[topcat54]

Nope... The Septuagint was authored probably by Eusebius, or, possibly by Origen...And that's why it matches the Hebrew OT in a few places where the Greek NT doesn't...They had copies of the Hebrew OT setting in front of them when they wrote it...

I see history is not your strong suit.

"The oldest and most important of all the versions made by Jews is that called "The Septuagint" ("Interpretatio septuaginta virorum" or "seniorum")" ( JewishEncyclopedia.com). It dates from the third century BC.

Why would the Jews universally try to pass something off as Jewish that was allegedly done by Christians?

Where do you get this information?

[bdeaner]

"The oldest and most important of all the versions made by Jews is that called "The Septuagint" ("Interpretatio septuaginta virorum" or "seniorum")" ( JewishEncyclopedia.com). It dates from the third century BC.

Yes, and to repeat for those listening, The Septuagint--the Jewish OT that was available at the time of Christ and which is referenced repeatedly in the NT--is the OT that contains the deuterocanonicals. That should settle it, once and for all, that the deuterocanonicals belong in the OT canon, and always have been.

It was the Alexandria Jews who compiled the Septuagint, and the last book was completed in 77 B.C.E. -- the Book of Esther.

This is a nice scholarly resource for those interested in reading further:

The Septuagint in the New Testament

[Dr. Eckleburg]

I’ve been missing all these great threads. Thanks for posting this bit of history.