Can We Trust the Bible: History of Progress Toward Canonization for the OT

History of Progress Toward Canonization for the OT

At the time of Christ, the OT canon included the 39 OT books which are found in today’s English Bible. This is confirmed in the writings of the great Jewish historian Josephus (A.D. 37-95). The compilation of the 39 books is discussed in greater detail in Article 4 of this series.

However, if you were to look at the table of contents of a Hebrew Old Testament, you would notice two differences from today’s English Old Testament. First, the English OT has only 22 books, not 39. The content, though, is identical; it is just that the Hebrew Bible combines certain books. (For example, books such as 1 and 2 Samuel are combined into one, and other smaller books are attached to larger ones.)

A second difference is that the order of the books is rearranged. It is interesting to note that the last book of the Hebrew Bible is not Malachi but Chronicles. With an understanding of this arrangement of books, Erwin Lutzer provides further proof in support of the opening comment of this article.

“Now let me share an incidental proof that Christ’s Bible was the same in content as the Hebrew Old Testament we have today. The first murder in the Old Testament was, of course, when Cain killed Abel; the last murder, according to the Hebrew order of books, was when the prophet Zechariah, the son of Jehoiada, was stoned to death in the temple (2 Chronicles 24:20-21). Only now are we prepared to understand the words of Jesus, ‘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 (Matthew 23:34-35).’ Given the order of the Hebrew Old Testament, Christ gives a sweeping panorama of its entire history. These two murders are ‘bookends’ for the whole of the Hebrew canon. In New Testament terms we would say, ‘From Genesis to Revelation.’ This is further proof that Christ’s Bible was that of the Jewish Hebrew Canon (though arranged differently), as our own Old Testament.” (Seven Reasons Why You Can Trust The Bible, pgs. 169-170)

Skeptics maintain that a group of “old men” (religious scholars} came together in 95 A.D.--the Synod of Jamnia--to decide what books were to be included in the OT. Nothing could be further from the truth! It has already been demonstrated that by the time of Christ, the OT was already compiled and considered to be canonical scripture (see Article 4). Josephus maintains the OT canon had been closed for five centuries. The Synod was a gathering of Jewish scholars who had no authority for Judaism, and they did not add to nor delete from the 39 books already in use.

• Our next article looks at the External Evident Supporting the Reliability of the OT.
• Return to our Introduction Post to see a list of all articles in this series.

Can We Trust the Bible: Rejection of the Apocryphal Books of the Old Testament

Among the many reasons for rejecting the Apocryphal books of the Old Testament are: (1) the great Jewish scholars rejected them (Philo, Josephus, and the Jamnia scholars); (2) early biblical scholars (Melito, Origen, Epiphanius, and Jerome) rejected them; (3) early church fathers rejected them; (4) they do not claim inspiration and even, in some cases, disclaims it; (5) they have no predictive prophecy or additional Messianic truth; (6) they contain some unbiblical teachings; (7) large portions of the books are obviously legendary and fictitious; and, (8) historical, chronological, and geographical errors may be found throughout the writings.

With regard to the twelve books which appear as an addition in the Roman Catholic Bible, commonly referred to as The Apocrypha, it was not until 1546 that the Catholic Church decreed these books for inclusion in their canon.  In their book, From God to Us by Norman Geisler and William Nix, they note:  “The action of the Council of Trent was both polemical and prejudicial.  In debates with Luther, the Roman Catholics had quoted the Maccabees in support of prayer for the dead (2 Mac. 12:45-46).  Luther and Protestants following him challenged the canonicity of that book, citing the New Testament, the early church Fathers, and Jewish teachers for support.  The Council of Trent responded to Luther by canonizing the Apocrypha. . . .The decision at Trent did not reflect either a universal or indisputable consent within the Catholic church of the Reformation.  During that very time Cardinal Cajetan, who opposed Luther at Augsburg in 1518, published a Commentary on All the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament (1532) which omitted the Apocrypha.  Even before this, Cardinal Ximenes distinguished between the Apocrypha and the Old Testament canon in his Coplutensian Polyglot (1514-1517).  With this data in view, Protestants generally reject the decision of Trent as unfounded.”  (Pages 97-98)

Additionally, in his book How We Got the Bible, Neil Lightfoot makes the following comment on The Apocrypha:  “Objections to these books cannot be overruled by dictatorial authority [i.e., the Catholic Church].  On 8 April 1546 in the fourth session of the Council of Trent, the Roman Catholic Church pronounced the Old Testament Apocrypha [with the exception of certain books] as authoritative and canonical Scripture.  This was done even though in different periods of its own history officials of the Roman Church had been outspoken against the Apocrypha as Scripture.  At that time the Council also decreed that the Latin Vulgate only was to be regarded as authentic Scripture and that ‘holy Mother Church’ alone maintained the right to give the true interpretation of Scripture. . . . Indeed, according to the Council of Trent, the Scriptures are and mean what the church says.  Yet Rome, which in such matters claims infallibility, cannot make the fallible Apocrypha infallible.”  (Pages 169-170)  It is somewhat ironic that the great Roman Catholic biblical scholar Jerome, who translated the Scriptures into the Latin Vulgate, did not recognize The Apocrypha as being of equal authority with the books of the Hebrew canon.

• Our next article will discuss the History of Progress toward Canonization for the OT
      
• Return to our Introduction Post to see a list of all articles in this series.

Can We Trust the Bible? The Apocryphal Books of the Old Testament

“The Banned Books of the Bible,” “The Lost Books of the Bible,” --these are just two of the many titles from books and TV programs which refer to books known as “Apocryphal” books. The meaning of “Apocrypha” includes doubtful, hidden, secret, and noncanonical.

Applying the “standards for measure” or “standards of judgment” previously discussed, the following writings were rejected by the ancient Jewish fathers from inclusion into the Old Testament canon:

*Baruch, II Baruch, The Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch
*Bel and the Dragon
*Ecclesiasticus, or the Wisdom of Jesus Son of Sirach
I Enoch, II Enoch, Book of the Secrets of Enoch
**1 Esdras  ***2 Esdras
*Judith
*I Maccabees *II Maccabees **III Maccabees ****IV Maccabees
Pirke Aboth
**Prayer of Manasseh
**Psalm 151
*Susanna
*The Additions to the Book of Daniel (added after Daniel 3:23)
*The Additions to the Book of Esther
The Assumption of Moses
The Book of Adam and Eve
The Book of Jubilee
The Letter of Aristeas
*The Letter of Jeremiah (sometimes incorporated as the last chapter of Baruch)
The Martyrdom of Isaiah
The Psalms of Solomon
The Sibylline Oracles
The Story of Ahikar
The Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs
*Tobit
*Wisdom of Solomon

NOTES: 

*These books appear in the Roman Catholic, Greek, and Slavonic Bibles.
**These books appear in the Greek and Slavonic Bibles, but not in the Roman Catholic canon.
***This book appears in the Slavonic Bible and in the Latin Vulgate Appendix.
****This book appears in the Appendix to the Greek Bible.

• Our next article will discuss specific reasons for rejecting the Old Testament Apocrypha
         
• Return to our Introduction Post to see a list of all articles in this series.

Can We Trust the Bible? The Development of the OT (Lou Gentry)

We know the Old Testament was compiled by the writings of various authors and their scrolls were collected over a period of hundreds of years. Scripture tells us that Moses was a contributor: Ex 17:14, 24:4; 34:27; Num. 33:1-2; Deut. 31:9, 31:11, 31:24; Josh. 1:7-8, 8:31-32; 1 Kings 2:3; 2 Kings 14:6; John 5:46-47, 7:19; Romans 10:5, etc.) The Bible also tells us Joshua added to the writings of Moses (Josh. 24:26). Then, Samuel added his writings (1 Sam. 10:25). The writings of the prophets were collected over time (Dan. 9:2; Zech. 7:12 - note that later writings quote earlier ones). We know of this progressive collection of scrolls--the compilation of the Old Testament--not only through Scripture, but through the discovery of the Qumran Community and the Dead Sea Scrolls.

By the time of Josephus, the great Jewish historian, the OT Canon had been completed for some four hundred years. Josephus lived during the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. In his autobiography (written about 90 A.D.) he tells how the Emperor Titus gave him the sacred scrolls from the temple at Jerusalem when it was pillaged. In it we find the following quotation:

“We have not an innumerable multitude of books among us disagreeing and contradicting one another, but only twenty-two books which contain the records of all the past times, which are justly believed to be divine. . . .It is true our history hath been written since Artaxerxes very particularly, but hath not been esteemed of a like authority with the former by our forefathers, because there hath not been an exact succession of prophets since that time, and how firmly we have given credit to these books of our nation, is evident by what we do; for during so many ages as have already passed, no one hath been so bold as either to add anything to them, to take anything from them, or to make any change in them; but it has become natural to all Jews, immediately and from their very birth, to esteem these books to contain divine doctrines” (emphasis added).

This quotation from Josephus reveals:

1. The Jews believed in verbal inspiration;
2. The Jews received the canonical books because they were written by prophets;
3. The Apocryphal books (to be discussed in a forthcoming article) and others were known not to have been written by prophets;
4. The canon included all the 39 books in our Bible today and no others (the Hebrew canon of twenty-two books is the exact equivalent to the 39 books of our OT);
5. The first and only listing of the OT books until about 170 A.D.;
6. Josephus gave great prominence to prophetic authorship; and,
7. Nno book was added to the Hebrew Scriptures after the time of Malachi (a contemporary of Ezra and Nehemiah--the period of Artaxerxes).

The Talmud (authoritative writing of Jewish traditions) also makes the claim that in order for a book to be canonical and included as part of the OT, it must come from the prophetic succession during the prophetic period (Seder Olam Babba 30). It further records, “After the latter prophets Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, the Holy Spirit departed from Israel.”

• Our next article looks at the Apocryphal Books of the OT
        
• Return to our Introduction Post to see a list of all articles in this series.

Support us by visiting:

Can We Trust the Bible? Canonicity (by Lou Gentry)

 

Canonicity: Definition - There are numerous definitions in print on this subject; and while the actual combination of words for each may differ, most have developed their definition from the root word kavwv (Greek) meaning rod, ruler, standard for measure. Theologically, the word is applied as a rule, standard or norm. Webster’s Dictionary defines it as “a criterion or standard of judgment.”

What then were the “standards for measure” or “standards of judgment” which determined what writings were considered canonical scripture? There were five such standards:

• Was it written by a man of God? A prophet? An apostle? An associate of an apostle?  (Heb. 1:1; 2 Peter 1:20-21)
• With the possible exception of Hebrews, all books included in the Bible were written by either a man of God (David, for example), prophet, apostle, or an associate of one of these.
    
• Is the writing authoritative? Does it claim to be of God and/or were the writers confirmed by an act of God? (John 3:2; Acts 2:22; Heb. 2:3)
    
• Is the writing authentic? Does it tell the truth about God? (Deut. 18:22; Gal. 1:8)
• Does it contradict previous truth?  If so, it was not accepted.
    
• Is the writing dynamic? Does it have the Power of God? (Heb. 4:12)
    
• Was the book received? Was it accepted by the people of God?  (Dan. 9:2; 1 Thess. 2:13; 2 Pet. 3:15)
• Was it circulated and utilized by the followers of God?

From the definition and application of these standards, a good definition of Canonical Scripture can be developed:

a document or corpus of documents containing a permanent authoritative record of divine revelation.

  

Our next article looks at the Progessive Development of the OT Canon.
   

Return to our Introduction Post to see a list of all articles in this series.

This Post Sponsored by:

Can We Trust the Bible? The Septuagint (by Lou Gentry)

   
      
Considered one of the most important Bible translations ever made, the Septuagint is a translation of the Hebrew OT into Greek. It is referred to in manuscripts as “according to the seventy” (“Septuagint” is Latin for “seventy”). “LXX” is often used in place of the word “Septuagint.”

     
The legend behind the “seventy” goes back to the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus at Alexandria (284-247 B.C.). This monarch allegedly sent an embassy to Jerusalem with a letter to Eleazar the high priest, requesting that six elders from each of the twelve tribes should be sent to Alexandria to develop a new translation of the Hebrew OT into the Greek language.

“The seventy-two duly arrived with a copy of the law written in letters of gold on rolls of skins. . . . . .The translators were provided with a satisfactory retreat on the island of Pharos, and Demetrius [Demetrius Phalerius, librarian of the famous library of Alexandria] exhorted them to accomplish the work of translation. . . . . .So they set to work, comparing their results, and making them agree. And whatever they agreed upon was suitably copied under the direction of Demetrius. . . . .In this way the transcription was completed in seventy-two days.” (The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible. Vol. 5, p. 343).

   
The majority of biblical scholars agree that the Septuagint is a worthy translation of the Hebrew OT. For example, Dr. Neil Lightfoot in his book How We Got the Bible notes:

“Although there are numerous textual variations between the Septuagint and the Hebrew text, the great majority of these are minor. Often it is not mentioned how very much the Septuagint supports the Hebrew text. Yet even when the Septuagint differs and offers a better reading, nonetheless it never replaces the Hebrew as the standard form of the text. Because it is a translation, the Septuagint always remains secondary. Only with great care, then, can one speak of ‘the authority of the Septuagint’.” (p. 149)

    
Influences the Septuagint have had upon the Bible we use today (via the Latin Vulgate) include:

1. dividing the OT into grouping of books--Law, History, Poetry, and Prophets
2. giving names to the books of The Law--Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy
3. subdividing some books--for example, 1 and 2 Samuel. 

Additionally, the Septuagint holds special interest for Christians inasmuch as it was the Bible used by the early church; and its language prepared the way for evangelism in the Greek world.

• Our next article begins a discussion of Canonicity
     
• Return to our Introduction Post to see a list of all articles in this series.

   
 This Post Sponsored by:

Can We Trust the Bible? The Hebrew Old Testament (by Lou Gentry)

    

How We Got Our Bible:  The Hebrew Old Testament

The Two Testaments

The word “testament” in the designations “Old Testament” and “New Testament,” goes back through the Latin testament to the Greek diatheke, which in most of its occurrences in the Greek Bible means “covenant” rather than “testament.” In Jeremiah 31:31, a new covenant is foretold which will supersede that which God made with Israel in the wilderness (cf. Exod. 24:7ff). “By calling this covenant ‘new,’ he has made the first one obsolete” (Heb. 8:13). The NT writers see the fulfillment of the prophecy of the new covenant in the new order inaugurated by the work of Christ; His own words of institution (1 Cor. 11:25) give the authority for this interpretation. The OT books, then, are so called because of their close association with the history of the “old covenant”; the NT books are so called because they are the foundation documents of the “new covenant.” The terms “Old Testament” and “New Testament” for the two collections of books came into general Christian use in the latter part of the second century.

The Old Testament

The Hebrew OT is arranged in three divisions. First is The Law, also known as the Pentateuch. It includes the “Books of Moses” (i.e., first five books of the OT). It was the first section of the OT to be recognized as canonical. It is generally accepted that it was both complete and canonical by the time of Ezra and Nehemiah in the 5th Century B.C.--may have been so considerably earlier.

Second is The Prophets. It includes four books of earlier Prophets and four books of later Prophets. These eight books include Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the Minor Prophets (counted as one book).

The third division is The Sacred Writings (Hagiographa). It includes the books of Ruth, Chronicles, Ezra-Nehemiah, Esther, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs (Solomon), Lamentations, and Daniel.

These three divisions total 24 books. In the first century these three divisions were differently arranged into twenty-two books. Two of the smaller books were combined with others. Regardless of the arrangement, the included books contain all of the 39 books incorporated into the Bibles we use today.

• Our next article looks at how the Septuagint came to be.
     
• Return to our Introduction Post to see a list of all posts in this series.

        

Can We Trust the Bible? Introduction (by Lou Gentry)

Last year, I was given the privilege of delivering the message for three Wednesday night services. On two of these nights, the topic discussed was, “Why We Can Trust The Bible?” Two 25-30 minute messages cannot do justice to this topic--in fact, many books have been written on it. As a result, I have been asked to do a series expanding upon these two messages. It is appropriate, perhaps, that we look at this subject inasmuch as 2011 was the 400th anniversary of the first printing of the King James Version of the Bible.
  

The foundation of this series will be the book by Erwin W. Lutzer, Seven Reasons Why You Can Trust The Bible, although many other sources will be used. A listing of these sources will be posted at some point during the series. The following outline provides information as to what topics will be covered during the forthcoming months:
 

INTRODUCTION

HOW WE GOT OUR BIBLE

THE OLD TESTAMENT

• The Hebrew Old Testament
• The Septuagint
• Canonicity - Definition and Development
• How a Book is Determined to be Canonical Scripture
• Development of the Old Testament
• Old Testament Apocryphal Books
• The Rejection of the OT Apocryphal Books
• History of Progress Toward Canonization
• External Evidence Supporting the Reliability of the O.T.
• Archaeological Evidence
• Manuscript Evidence
• Internal Evidence Supporting the Reliability of the O.T.
• Fulfilled Prophecies
• Jesus' Perspective on the O.T.

THE NEW TESTAMENT

• Canonicity
• Reasons for a New Testament
• Development of the New Testament
• New Testament Apocrypha Books
• External Evidence Supporting the Reliability of the N.T.
• Manuscript Evidence
• Comparison with Other Ancient Literature
• Transmission of Manuscripts
• Reliability of the Early Manuscripts

CONTRIBUTION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT

INERRANCY

• Definition
• The Biblical Basis of Inerrancy

CONCLUSION

I trust the information which will be presented will not only strengthen your faith in the reliability of the Scriptures, but also enable you to better refute the doubts expressed by non-believers. Stephen and I would welcome your comments at any time throughout this series of articles.

This Post Sponsored by: