Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Canon of Scripture
Fisheaters.com ^ | not given | Fisheaters.com

Posted on 06/16/2013 3:15:37 PM PDT by Salvation

The Canon of Scripture


The Four Evangelists, by Rubens

 

Real Audio Lessons on this Topic

 
Protestants, Catholics, and most Orthodox agree now 1 that the New Testament should consist at least of the 27 Books (Matthew through Revelation/Apocalypse) that the Catholic Church determined were canonical, but the Protestant Old Testament is lacking 7 entire books 2 (Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus/Sirach, Baruch, I Maccabees, and II Maccabees), 3 chapters of Daniel and 6 chapters of Esther, leaving them with 66 incomplete books while Catholic Bibles have 73 books. How did this come to be?


Background

The canon of the Old Testament that Catholics use is based on the text used by Alexandrian Jews, a version known as the "Septuagint" (also called "LXX" or "The Seventy") and which came into being around 280 B.C. as a translation of then existing texts from Hebrew into Greek by 72 Jewish scribes (the Torah was translated first, around 300 B.C., and the rest of Tanach was translated afterward).



It was a standard Jewish version of the Old Testament, used by the writers of the New Testament, as is evidenced by the fact that Old Testament references found in the New Testament refer to the Septuagint over other versions of the Old Testament. Let me reiterate: the then 300+ year old Septuagint version of Scripture was good enough for Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Paul, etc., which is evident in their referencing it over 300 times (out of 350 Old Testament references!) in their New Testament writings -- and the Septuagint includes 7 books and parts of Esther and Daniel that were removed from Protestant Bibles some 1,500 years after the birth of Christ.

The Septuagint is the Old Testament referred to in the Didache or "Doctrine of the Apostles" (first century Christian writings) and by Origen, Irenaeus of Lyons, Hippolytus, Tertullian, Cyprian of Carthage, Justin Martyr, St. Augustine and the vast majority of early Christians who referenced Scripture in their writings. The Epistle of Pope Clement, written in the first century, refers to the Books Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom, analyzed the book of Judith, and quotes sections of the book of Esther that were removed from Protestant Bibles.

Bottom line: the Septuagint was the version of the Old Testament accepted by the very earliest Christians (and, yes, those 7 "extra" books were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls which date between 168 B.C. and A.D. 68, and which by the way, support both the Septuagint and the 6th - 10th c. A.D. Masoretic texts in various ways, but supporting the Septuagint on average. 3 ).

The deuterocanonical books were, though, debated in the early Church, and some Fathers accorded them higher status than others (hence the Catholic term for them: "deuterocanonical," or what St. Cyril of Jerusalem called "secondary rank," as opposed to the other books which are called "protocanonical"). But all the Fathers believed as did St. Athanasius, who, in one of his many Easter letters, names the 22 Books all Christians accept and then describes the deuterocanonicals as "appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness." Church Councils listed and affirmed the present Catholic canon, which was only formally closed at the Council of Trent in the 16th century.


So what happened?

In the 16th c., Luther, reacting to serious abuses and clerical corruption in the Latin Church, to his own heretical theological vision (see articles on sola scriptura and sola fide), and, frankly, to his own inner demons, removed those books from the canon that lent support to orthodox doctrine, relegating them to an appendix. Removed in this way were books that supported such things as prayers for the dead (Tobit 12:12; 2 Maccabees 12:39-45), Purgatory (Wisdom 3:1-7), intercession of dead saints (2 Maccabees 15:14), and intercession of angels as intermediaries (Tobit 12:12-15). Ultimately, the "Reformers" decided to ignore the canon determined by the Christian Councils of Hippo and Carthage (and reaffirmed and closed at the Council of Trent4), and resort solely to those texts determined to be canonical at the Council of Jamnia.


The Council of Jamnia?

Now we have to back up a bit: around A.D. 90-100, after the Temple fell, a rabbinical school was formed by Johanan ben Zakkai. The "Council of Jamnia" (also called "Jabneh" or "Javneh") is the name given to the decisions made by this pharisaic school. I repeat: the gathering at Jamnia was a Jewish, not a Christian, "council" consisting of Pharisees some 40 years after the Resurrection of our Lord. At that time, Jews were being scattered, and the very existence of Jewry per the Pharisees' vision of "Jewry" was being threatened. At this time, too, Christianity was growing and threatening that same Jewish identity, resulting in severe persecution of Christians by Jews. In reaction to these things and to the fact that "Nazarenes" (i.e., "Christians", who at that time were overwhelmingly Hebrew) used the Septuagint to proselytize other Jews, Zakkai convened the Jamnian school with the goals of safeguarding Hillel's Oral Law, deciding the Jewish canon (which had theretofore been, and possibly even afterward remained 5, an open canon!), and preventing the disappearance of Jewry into the Diaspora of the Christian and Roman worlds. So, circling their wagons, they threw out the Septuagint that they had endorsed for almost 400 years. Note that at the time of Christ, most Jews spoke Aramaic, Latin (the official language of the area), and/or Greek (the lingua franca at that time), not Hebrew, which was a sacred language used by priests for the Hebrew liturgy. In any case, a new Greek translation was created by Aquila -- but one without the ancient Septuagint's language that proved more difficult for the Jews to defend against when being evangelized by the Christians, the point being that any idea that a book "had" to have been written in Hebrew to be "Biblical" wasn't the issue.

Moving the story along: in other words, the Protestant "Reformers" decided against the canon held dear by the Apostles in favor of a canon determined by Pharisees some 40 years after Jesus rose from the dead -- the same Pharisees who denied the Truths of the entire New Testament, even accusing the "Nazarenes" of stealing Jesus' body from the tomb and lying to the world! (Interestingly, it was Zakkai's successor, Gamaliel, who forced the "Nazarenes" out of the synagogues. Gamaliel also made it obligatory for Jews to pray the "Prayer of Eighteen Petitions," the 12th petition, which is still prayed today, known as the birkat, being "For apostates may there be no hope, and may the Nazarenes and heretics suddenly perish.")


And do you know why the Book of Maccabees was thrown out by the Jewish Council? Because the Council was conducted under the auspices of the Flavian Roman Emperors and they decided that that particuar book, which tells of the Maccabean Revolt, might be inflammatory and incite rebellion by the Jews. So, all those Protestant Bibles are lacking the Book of Maccabees, which speaks clearly of praying for the dead, because a pagan emperor pressured the Pharisees, around 40 years after the Resurrection of Christ, to exclude it. And lest anyone is still tempted to think that it was the "Roman Church" that came up with these books and that they were not written by pre-Christ Jews (an assertion I've actually read at "Messianic" websites), Jews in other parts of the world who didn't get news of the Council of Jamnia's decisions still use those "extra" 7 books to this very day (research the canon used by Ethiopian Jewry).


Conclusion

Me, I will trust the version of the Old Testament that was loved by Peter and Paul.

But there is a bigger lesson in all this confusion over not only the canon but proper translation of the canon (see footnotes), especially considering that even within the Catholic Church there have been differing opinions by individual theologians about the proper place of the deuterocanonicals (not that an individual theologian's opinions count for Magisterial teaching!). The lesson, though, is this: relying on the "Bible alone" is a bad idea; we are not to rely solely on Sacred Scripture to understand Christ's message. While Scripture is "given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16-17), it is not sufficient for reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness. It is the Church that is the "pillar and ground of Truth" (1 Timothy 3:15)! Jesus did not come to write a book; He came to redeem us, and He founded a Sacramental Church through His apostles to show us the way. It is to them, to the Church Fathers, to the Sacred Deposit of Faith, to the living Church that is guided by the Holy Spirit, and to Scripture that we must prayerfully look.

Check here for a look at the Catholic canon.
 

Footnotes
1 Luther wanted to remove the Epistle of James, Esther, Hebrews, Jude and Revelation. Calvin and Zwingli also both had problems with the Book of Revelation, the former calling it "unintelligible" and forbidding the pastors in Geneva to interpret it, the latter calling it "unbiblical". The Syrian (Nestorian) Church has only 22 books in the New Testament while the Ethiopian Church has 8 "extra." The first edition of the King James Version of the Bible included the "Apocryphal" (ie, Deuterocanonical) Books.

2 The 7 books removed from Protestant Bibles are known by Catholics as the "Deuterocanonical Books" (as opposed to the "Protocanonical Books" that are not in dispute), and by Protestants as the "Apocrypha."


3 By the way, "Masoretic texts" refers to translations of the Old Testament made by rabbis between the 6th and 10th centuries; the phrase doesn't refer to ancient texts in the Hebrew language. I mention this because, apparently, some people think that the Masoretic texts are the "original texts" and that, simply because they are in Hebrew, they are superior.

In any case, the Latin Church in no way ignored the post-Temple rabbincal texts. Some Old Testament translations of the canon used by the Latin Church were also based in part on rabbinical translations, for example St. Jerome's 5th c. Latin translation of the Bible called the Vulgate.

Some Protestants claim that the "Apocrypha" (i.e., the Deuterocanonical Books) are not quoted in the New Testament so, therefore, they are not canonical. First, this isn't true; see Relevant Scripture below. Second, going by that standard of proof, we'd have to throw out Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 2 Kings, 1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Lamentations, Obadiah, Nahum, and Zephaniah because none of these Old Testament Books are quoted in the New Testament.


4 Many non-Catholic Christians like to accuse Catholics of "adding" Books to the Bible at the 16th c. Council of Trent. This is absolutely, 100% false. This Council, among other things, simply affirmed the ancient accepted books in the face of Protestant tinkering. How could Luther have relegated the deuterocanonical books to an appendix if they hadn't already been accepted in the first place? The Gutenberg Bible was printed in 1454 -- and it included the deuterocanonical Books. How could the Church have "added" them at the Council of Trent that began 91 years later? I defy any Protestant to find a Bible in existence before 1525 that looked like a modern Protestant Bible! Most Protestant Bibles included the deuterocanonical Books until about 1815, when the British and Foreign Bible Society discontinued the practice! And note that Jews in other parts of the world who weren't around to hear the Council of Jamnia's decision in A.D. 100 include to this day those "extra" 7 books in their canon. Do some research on the canon used by Ethiopian Jewry.


5 There is debate as to whether the Council of Jamnia actually "closed" the Jewish canon because debate continued among Jews for hundreds of years afterward as to which books should be included or excluded. Even into the 3rd century A.D., controversy surrounded Ezekiel, Proverbs, Ruth, Esther, and others.


 


TOPICS: Catholic; History; Mainline Protestant; Orthodox Christian
KEYWORDS: bible; catholic
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-66 next last

Scripture mentioned in the above article

Tobit 12:15
I am Raphael, one of the seven holy angels who present the prayers of the saints and enter into the presence of the glory of the Holy One. [see Revelation 1:4 and 8:3-4 below]

2 Maccabees 7:29
[A mother speaking to her son:] Do not fear this butcher, but prove worthy of your brothers. Accept death, so that in God's mercy I may get you back again with your brothers. [see Hebrews 11:35 below]

2 Maccabees 12:44
For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead. [see 1 Corinthians 15:29 below]

2 Maccabees 15:14
And Onias spoke, saying, "This is a man who loves the brethren and prays much for the people and the holy city, Jeremiah [bodily dead], the prophet of God."

1 Corinthians 15:29
Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf? [see 2 Maccabees 12:44 above]

Hebrews 11:35
Women received their dead raised to life again: and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection. [see 2 Maccabees 7:29 above]

Revelation 1:4
...Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne. [see Tobit 12:15 above]

Revelation 8:3-4
And another angel came and stood at the altar with a golden censer; and he was given much incense to mingle with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar before the throne; and the smoke of the incense rose with the prayers of the saints from the hand of the angel before God. [see Tobit 12:15 above]


Further Reading

Canon of the Old Testament


1 posted on 06/16/2013 3:15:37 PM PDT by Salvation
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Salvation; Religion Moderator

Religion Moderator,
How can you post an Ecumenical Thread that contains oppositional language and attacks in the main article?

For example, this quote:

“In the 16th c., Luther, reacting to serious abuses and clerical corruption in the Latin Church, to his own heretical theological vision (see articles on sola scriptura and sola fide), and, frankly, to his own inner demons”

I suggest the Ecumenical tag be removed or the thread removed. People should follow the rules on the Religion Moderator home page...


2 posted on 06/16/2013 3:18:30 PM PDT by aMorePerfectUnion (Gone rogue, gone Galt, gone international, gone independent. Gone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway; NYer; ELS; Pyro7480; livius; ArrogantBustard; Catholicguy; RobbyS; marshmallow; ...

Canon of Scripture Ping!


3 posted on 06/16/2013 3:25:31 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aMorePerfectUnion

Facts are facts.


4 posted on 06/16/2013 3:43:03 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: aMorePerfectUnion; Salvation
I see what you mean ~ but it may not be possible to find an article that covers this particular topic WITHOUT assorted bromides and insults.

it is interesting ~ can't say it's not ~

Salvation, BTW, our religion moderator may not be prepared for this one.

5 posted on 06/16/2013 3:45:00 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
From the Religion Moderator's home page:

Ecumenical threads are closed to antagonism.

To antagonize is to incur or to provoke hostility in others.

Unlike the “caucus” threads, the article and reply posts of an “ecumenical” thread may discuss more than one belief, but antagonism is not tolerable.

Religion Moderator - if someone cannot post anything that provokes hostility, how can you post a hostile article that is antagonistic and then discuss it without being labeled antagonistic?

6 posted on 06/16/2013 3:51:10 PM PDT by aMorePerfectUnion (Gone rogue, gone Galt, gone international, gone independent. Gone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Salvation; aMorePerfectUnion

“Facts are facts.”

Just because the Roman Church says so does not make it fact.


7 posted on 06/16/2013 3:52:21 PM PDT by GGpaX4DumpedTea
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

I love this stuff. It’s a spectator sport for me but I’m happy that there are people at work figuring it out.


8 posted on 06/16/2013 3:55:10 PM PDT by Mercat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GGpaX4DumpedTea

For example, the claim that the “Jewish canon” was determined at “Jamnia” is at very best, a “hypothetical”. It’s a Roman Catholic fantasy or worse.


9 posted on 06/16/2013 3:56:43 PM PDT by jjotto ("Ya could look it up!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: aMorePerfectUnion; Religion Moderator
"and, frankly, to his own inner demons”

Agree. This is not antagonistic language? Really?

10 posted on 06/16/2013 4:06:36 PM PDT by what's up
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
Protestants, Catholics, and most Orthodox agree now 1 that the New Testament should consist at least of the 27 Books (Matthew through Revelation/Apocalypse) that the Catholic Church determined were canonical, but the Protestant Old Testament is lacking 7 entire books 2 (Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus/Sirach, Baruch, I Maccabees, and II Maccabees), 3 chapters of Daniel and 6 chapters of Esther, leaving them with 66 incomplete books while Catholic Bibles have 73 books. How did this come to be?

Notice the assumption that got slipped in.

11 posted on 06/16/2013 4:26:46 PM PDT by Lee N. Field ("You keep using that verse, but I do not think it means what you think it means." --I. Montoya)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

What is the difference between the Apocrypha and the Deuterocanonical books?


12 posted on 06/16/2013 4:34:40 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (Liberals are like locusts...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2973419/posts We actually covered some of this same material last year ~ Has there been a change in the ECUMENTAL rules? I’ve read them here, and in the reference above, and they seem different.


13 posted on 06/16/2013 4:47:13 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

Roman Catholic mythology ...


14 posted on 06/16/2013 4:52:17 PM PDT by dartuser
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

Your opinion and flame bait.


15 posted on 06/16/2013 5:16:50 PM PDT by bonfire
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: aMorePerfectUnion
"How can you post an Ecumenical Thread that contains oppositional language and attacks in the main article?

For example, this quote:

“In the 16th c., Luther, reacting to serious abuses and clerical corruption in the Latin Church, to his own heretical theological vision (see articles on sola scriptura and sola fide), and, frankly, to his own inner demons”

I don't see how this can be construed as an attack on anyone in this Forum (unless Martin Luther is a FReeper).

In fact the historical record is clear: Martin Luther suffered from terrible scrupulosity-- the belief that he could never be good enough to go to heaven. His personal solution to the problem was to invent the "faith alone" doctrine which is contradictory to the Scriptures and was never believed by any Christian in the previous 1500 years of Christianity. He then tried to promote his personal solutions into doctrine. When the Church didn't go along, he rebelled. Simple as that. As someone has already said, facts is facts.

16 posted on 06/16/2013 5:16:55 PM PDT by fidelis (Zonie and USAF Cold Warrior)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: dartuser
"Roman Catholic mythology ..."

Well then...I guess that settles it. ;)

17 posted on 06/16/2013 5:19:51 PM PDT by fidelis (Zonie and USAF Cold Warrior)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: fidelis; Religion Moderator

“I don’t see how this can be construed as an attack on anyone in this Forum (unless Martin Luther is a FReeper).”

I did not say it was an attack on a FReeper. It is an attack on one side of an ecumenical discussion in the very article by the other side. In other words, on a thread that prohibits antagonism, the article stacks the deck, skirting the historic rules and practices of ecumenical threads.

Historically, FreeRepublic Religion Forum rules and moderator decisions have thrown out antagonistic articles when posted as ecumenical. I’m asking for a response from the RM - and I accept his or her decision.

Even your statement that I am responding to is antagonistic toward one side and is by definition, not ecumenical and should be removed by the RM.


18 posted on 06/16/2013 5:21:41 PM PDT by aMorePerfectUnion (Gone rogue, gone Galt, gone international, gone independent. Gone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: jjotto
"For example, the claim that the “Jewish canon” was determined at “Jamnia” is at very best, a “hypothetical”. It’s a Roman Catholic fantasy or worse."

Note that the article contains the following footnote:

5 There is debate as to whether the Council of Jamnia actually "closed" the Jewish canon because debate continued among Jews for hundreds of years afterward as to which books should be included or excluded. Even into the 3rd century A.D., controversy surrounded Ezekiel, Proverbs, Ruth, Esther, and others

The point is that the Jewish canon was not fixed until well into the Christian area--possibly even after the Christian canon (consisting of all 74 books) was fixed in the 4th century. At Jamnia, the Jews there were mostly concerned with identifying and rejecting what was NOT Scripture-- including some writings that are now part of the New Testament. The Christian Church, already in existence, could not be bound by Jewish teaching authority.

19 posted on 06/16/2013 5:31:53 PM PDT by fidelis (Zonie and USAF Cold Warrior)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

The truth is: the position put out by your religion on its canon is completely false...Your earliest church fathers disagree with your religion’s current position...

So in the spirit of ecumenicism, I would encourage you to study the earliest church fathers to find more accurate information so that we all could agree...


20 posted on 06/16/2013 5:33:15 PM PDT by Iscool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-66 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson