Canon of the Bible

From the Christian Bibles, there are differences between the number of books contained in the Old Testament (OT) of the Catholic Bible versus the Protestant Bible namely the modern version of the King James Bible. This difference occurs because of the assertion to use one of two contemporary lists for the canon of the OT, a short list and a long list. The history behind both lists is well known. Rabbinic Judaism, Catholics, and Protestant sects have plied their arguments as to which is the true list to use for their Bible. Catholics maintain the longer list as being the authoritative list for the OT while the Protestants contend that the shorter list is the authoritative list. And we will see why!

The longer list used in the Catholic Bible is derived from a list of OT manuscripts called the Septuagint. In it, there are 46 books from the OT. The list of OT books found in the Septuagint was developed in ancient times from 285 BC to 246 BC and came from the Hebrew Biblical library in Alexandria, Egypt. During these ancient times, Greek was a predominant language spoken throughout the Mediterranean. During that time and afterward, Hebrews throughout the Greek-speaking Mediterranean used this list. There is strong evidence that shows this list was available and used by the Jewish people up to and including the time of Jesus Christ (many people want to argue this point).

Scholarly work done concerning the “Second Temple Judaism” suggests that the same list of books as those provided in the Septuagint was used in Judaism during this period. Second Temple Judaism is the developing Jewish faith during the time, beginning around 516 BC and ending with the destruction of the Temple by the Romans between 66AD – 70AD. (70AD is the usual date given for the destruction of the Temple.)

The shorter list for the Old Testament may be considered from two different threads of information. Both threads concern the surviving Pharisaic group who are known as “Rabbinic Jews.” And deal with what in common terminology is called the Hebrew Bible. However In Rabbinic Judaism, the term “Hebrew Bible” is not used. Instead, it is referred to as the Tanakh.[1] (Hebrew: תַּנַ״ךְ). The first thread involves what happened to some Pharisaic Jews escaping Jerusalem at the time of the Roman siege in 66-70 A.D. The second thread is that the Rabbinic Jews did not formally acknowledge their canon until around 1000AD.

At the onset of the fall of Jerusalem, a tiny group of Pharisaic Jews were able to flee Jerusalem before the Romans sacked it. They settled in Jamnia which was west of Jerusalem and believed to be where modern-day Yavneh stands. It has been submitted by scholars that a short list,  at least in partial, of OT books was derived by this group and their subsequent generations long after they escaped from Jerusalem.

At the time of their escape, at least 33-37 years after Jesus’ death and resurrection, no Hebrew Canon immediately appear. It must be remembered that Christianity had already broken away from Judaism. Add the fact that some parts of the New Testament may have already been written as early as 56 AD. Also as will be pointed out, the New Testament would have been completed long before any suggested list of the OT would be submitted for consideration by the Rabbinic Jewish Sect.

This small Pharisaic community was only one sect of first-century Judaism and probably the only influential one surviving the destruction of the Romans. This is surmised because, after the fall of Jerusalem, there is no indication of any other surviving groups such as the Sadducees or Essenes. Except for some tiny splintered Jewish communities in other countries. The Pharisees remained the only “Influential” group as it pertains to the writing of a Hebrew Canon.

Between 90 -100 A.D. the Hebrew Council of Jamnia consisting of surviving Pharisaic Rabbis, hence the name “Rabbinic Judaism” set out to preserve the remaining vestiges of Judaism. They were concerned with the observance of “post-second temple” Judaism. Part of their efforts dealt with their own Canon for the Old Testament.

It is disputed whether this council existed and if it did, it is further disputed whether its purpose would have included a Canon for the surviving Jews. There is evidence that supports the move of pharisaic Jews to Jamnia (Yavneh). Without splitting hairs over the council mentioned, there is enough evidence to show that a Jewish Rabbinic group did set out to create a Canon but after several hundred years. This effort was never established as being completed. These Jewish Rabbis decided to use a list of only 39 Old Testament books for their TaNak. A deficit of 7 books.

It must be remembered that by this time (90-100 AD) Christianity had already been on the scene for many years. The Christians had already separated from the attachment to Jewish traditions and law early on, establishing their authority as one church for all matters of faith and teaching. This is particularly true concerning the deposit of written divine revelation which are the scriptures of the Old Testament. This authority as one church would consider the selection of which New Testament writings would be added as part of God’s divine revelation to the Old Testament.

The Christians were not compelled or obligated in any way to adopt the canon from the Hebrew Council of Jamnia or a canon coming from any later decisions by any Rabbinic group. We know the early Christian writers had already accepted the Septuagint version of the Old Testament because it is quoted from them in their writings.

Remember the Hebrew Council of Jamnia, a Rabbinic group, who were Pharisees, were the only Judaic sect left to represent the now scattered Jews. Groups such as the Sadducees and Essenes had vanished because of the Roman onslaught in the whole region of Judea. Therefore, this council was bound to select only those books that agreed with Pharisaic thought, wisdom, tradition, and theology. The efforts of the surviving Pharisees would be the foundation for Rabbinic Judaism of today.

_______________________________

[1] Tanakh or TaNaKh is also Spelled Tanach - a Hebrew acronym coming from the names of the three parts of its text. In Hebrew, it is three letters representing Torah (Ta), Nivi’im (na), and the Ketuvim (Kh). In Judaism when it concerns the text, strictly, the Tanakh consists of the  Torah (Instructions) which in Greek is the Pentateuch, the Nivi’im or the writings from the Prophets(or simply ‘Prophets’), and the Ketuvim (Writings) to represent other texts such as the Psalms and historical books.

The Septuagint is the name given to the 46 books/scriptures as compiled for the ancient library in Alexandria. This grouping is also referred to as the Alexandrian or Greek Canon for the Old Testament. The term “Septuagint” comes from the Latin for 70 (LXX). This number is purported to be the number of Hebrew translators who were tasked with writing the Old Testament from ancient Hebrew into the Greek language.

This task was promulgated in 285 – 246 B.C. during the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus. Ptolemy was compiling extant documents from around the world to be placed in a library in Alexandria Egypt. Particularly those from conquered or subject peoples under his realm. This would include the Jewish nation, who had a manuscript library and in particular one slated as their documents of faith.

The Alexandrian Library was the greatest in the ancient world. This library quickly acquired many writings or scrolls from all over the world containing writings from civilizations that are now gone. All this was due largely to Ptolemy’s aggressive and well-funded policies for procuring texts. It is estimated the number of scrolls ranged from 40,000 to 400,000 at its height.

The translation of the Hebrew text into Greek was given to 70 – 72 translators. The discrepancy in numbers has to do with the reporting of how many people were charged with the task. Tradition states that there were 6 translators from each of the twelve tribes of Israel thus the number 72. However, taking the name Septuagint will suggest that some 70-ish writers were involved. The exact number is not worth pausing over. The fact remains that the long Old Testament Hebrew list existed. This along with the facts on the how, when, and why it was translated from Hebrew to Greek to form the Septuagint. 

The canon derived by Rabbinic Judaism excluded: Wisdom, Sirach, Judith, Baruch, Tobit, Maccabees I & II, portions of Daniel, and portions from Esther.  There is little to go on regarding metrics or methods used by the Hebrew Council at Jamnia or later Rabbinic groups in the way of rubrics or a process for the selection of acceptable Old Testament texts. However, Rabbinic Judaism does believe their Canon as being rooted in their tradition. But, it must be remembered that whatever their employed authority may be, it is not binding to Christianity.

So did this or a Jewish council exist? If so is there any evidence of the existence of this Rabbinic group, or council? Yes, found in the Jewish Talmud there is a reference to a Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai who in 70 A.D. relocated to the city of Jamnia, where he received permission from the Romans to found a school of Jewish religious law called the Halakha.[1] There is also evidence in the Mishna coming from the second century that there was some debate about the use of certain books. So you see this rabbinic effort still had not settled on a list as they went into the second century AD and on into several more centuries.

Much is open to debate surrounding what occurred in the Hebrew Council at Jamnia or otherwise, whether or not they did set out to produce a Canon of their own and exactly how many years or decades were dedicated to the process. The evidence hints that they were still working on this well after the Apostles had died. In short, this effort went on for more centuries and was settled upon a shorter list around 1000 AD. The Rabbinic Jews of today maintain the shortlist for their Tanak (Hebrew Bible or  Old Testament).

So are there other claims as to where one can glean an authenticated proof for the shorted list of the Old Testament? In other words is there another claim to substantiate the authority for use of a shorter list? Well, some have tried, but it is more like someone grasping at straws. Some want to suggest that the Hebrew Canon may have been derived earlier during the Hasmonean Dynasty between the years 140 – 40 B.C. The only problem with this hypothesis as has already been explained and that the Septuagint list is older by over 100 years. Besides, even some Rabbinic Jewish scholars will point out that the Hasmoneans did not have Priestly authority or princely authority, therefore any efforts to provide for the faith (Old Testament list) are non-binding!

Something else that makes this suggestion a straw man’s argument is the fact that during this same time of a compiled “Hasmonean” list, there was already an existing library of text produced by the Essenes and it seems to have had a longer and much older list of Old Testament books. It also has been dated at least 60 years before the “Hasmonean” list and may have been contemporary with the Septuagint.

____________________________

[1]  Graetz, Heinrich (1871). "Der alttestamentliche Kanon und sein Abschluss (The Old Testament Canon and its finalisation)". Kohélet, oder der Salomonische Prediger (Kohélet, or Ecclesiastes) (in German). Leipzig: Carl Winters Universitätsbuchhandlung. pp. 147–173.

So, why are there two different lists for the OT as found in the protestant Bible (Shorter list) and Catholic Bible (Longer list)? The answer begins with the year 1516. In that year Martin Luther, a German Catholic priest, broke away from the Church and began the Protestant Reformation. During which, Martin Luther himself decided what should be included in the Bible thus reducing the number of books in the Old Testament of the Bible.

What is at issue here? There are several things! First, part of the issue deals with the question of authority for the existence of both lists. Second, is the faulty rubric Martin Luther used for consideration of a shorter list. Third, Martin Luther singularly decided what should be in the Old Testament. It is important to see if this three-legged stool on which sits Martin Luther’s reasoning can still stand after scrutiny.

The original canon of the Bible came from the Catholic Bishops. What was to be included in the Old Testament, was decided upon after the first centuries AD. Input from many Catholic Bishops was used for consideration of the accepted canon. Due to their effort across the first few centuries, discussions occurred to finally come up with the canon for the OT and the NT. Protestants and those following suit with the idea for the legitimacy of the protestant canon, need to concede the fact that the reason there is a canon for the NT was due to the authority of the Catholic Church. Attributed to the Catholic authority is also the idea to join the NT writings as “Scripture” to the officiated canon of the OT.

The Catholic Bishops had the authority for matters of faith especially when it came to the authoritative selection of authentic written revelation from God. In the New Testament writings, the writers quoted from the Septuagint OT. In fact, the Septuagint OT existed before the time of Christ and during his life on earth. It was known by the Jewish communities, especially in Jerusalem. Many Scholars have suggested that the temple in Jerusalem had a full copy of all the books contained in the Septuagint.  It is very reasonable to assert that following from the Apostolic example in their writings and Jewish history the selection of the Septuagint as a well-established OT was suitably inspired by God for use by the the Jews of that time and emerging Christianity.

Is there a legitimate justification for Martin Luther to remove books from the OT of the Christian Bible? Whereas Catholic Bishops were many, it took them deliberation across many centuries (due to Christian persecution by the Romans) to authoritatively affirm a canon. Martin Luther on the other hand gave himself, "one man" authority and single-handedly changed the Canon of the OT in the Bible by removing some books. Regarding such changes, to justify His actions when questioned about them, he would say, “It is so because Doctor Luther says it is so!” Wow! Such arrogance! He made himself the sole judge and jury on matters for the written deposit of the faithful.

Martin Luther's error occurs with his alleged reason to reduce the number of Old Testament books. He chose to follow the Jewish list which came from at best a second-century AD list that was derived from the Hebrew Council at Jamnia or the Rabbinic Judaism tradition which did not solidify its canon for almost 960 years after the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Luther reasoned that the eliminated books did not have any "Hebrew language" counterparts, but were found only in the Greek. So in essence, Luther and those who accept what he did are following a second-century AD “Jewish” authority rather than an already established second-century AD Christian church authority.

Luther’s reasoning is filled with enough holes it looks like Swiss cheese. His “Hebrew language” claim flies in the face of the fact that historically, in the 1500’s the church knew where the Septuagint came from. It was a Greek translation coming from existing “HEBREW” texts. Therefore at one point in time, the books in the Septuagint had original Hebrew counterparts. This leads one to wonder whether Luther was a very bad Biblical history student, or He did not care, or He chose to ignore those facts. This fact alone destroys Luther’s reason.

Another hole Luther’s " ‘Hebrew language’ counter-parts” Swiss cheese is his reasoning is faulty by deliberate misdeed (given above). Add to that evidence for the existence of text in Hebrew which can conclude otherwise. The fly is definitely in the ointment of Luther’s thinking however it was contrived. This evidence demonstrates that during His time, there existed some noted libraries used by Rabbinic Judaism. These libraries included the shorter list per the Rabbinic tradition. But they also had additional writings from their Talmud, Mishna, and additional OT writings as found in the Septuagint.

One instance of this evidence is the Ben Ezra Synagogue library.  In the 1890s, 200,000 Jewish manuscripts were discovered in a storeroom of the medieval synagogue Ben Ezra located in Cairo, Egypt. The storeroom having existed since medieval times was used for the deposition of old manuscripts referred to as a genizah. Among the Ben Ezra genizah documents are early manuscripts of the Mishna, Talmudic manuscripts the Jewish Bible (or TaNaK) in Aramaic[1]  along with many others which dated from the 10th to 11th century AD. In this treasure trove was found a Hebrew text of the Old Testament book Ben Sira which today is found in the Catholic Bible as the book of Sirach. It is important to note these manuscripts would have been compiled and recompiled from the previous centuries. Thus making the manuscripts of the genizah to be very, very old.

The Old Testament book of Sirach is one of the books Martin Luther removed from the Old Testament  of the Bible because he maintained it “did not have any ‘Hebrew language’ counterparts.” The best we can conclude is indeed the existence of the Ben Ezra synagogue and its contents going forward from the 10th – 11th century. The contents contained would have been miscellaneous Jewish writings and scriptures including the book of Sirach (Ben Sira) in Hebrew. This library would have been contemporary to the time of Luther’s self-authoritative conclusions for His version of an Old Testament canon.

It cannot be asserted that Luther was aware of this particular library and its contents because the evidence is inconclusive. But from the Ben Ezra evidence, it is clear that at least one book that Luther threw out existed in Hebrew and would have been contemporary to His time. So, either Luther was not aware that such texts existed, or if he was, he chose to ignore them. Considering this as well as other evidence held juxta position with what Luther did, does speak against his gross and false authority. His Swiss cheese reeks due to his arrogantly developing a non-substantial rubric for the acceptance of Old Testament books, and his arrogant claim of his sole authority to use it to take the actions he did. The evidence of the Ben Ezra library provided is only one such library that existed during and before His time. It was already pointed out that Martin Luther must have been familiar with the Septuagint. And for him to say, the books in the Septuagint “NEVER” had a Hebrew counterpart is absurd. This makes his reasoned statement, well, a lie!

It would be an obvious misdeed for Luther to sequester such evidence, again such misdeed may only point to his ignorance. It may be argued that his ignorance was the shadow of his arrogance. This arrogance chose to ignore the background of the Septuagint. Regardless, the evidence presented supports, in good conscience, that the faulty Old Testament canon asserted by Luther and those who choose to accept his canon, is linked to his faulty reasoning. There should be no doubt that his reasons are substantially inauthentic and non-authoritative.

One should not be fooled by Martin Luther’s stated reason for being a benevolent attempt to cleanse Christianity and purge the church of its evil ways. On the contrary. His stated reasons had ulterior motives. One motive was that some of the OT books contained passages supporting theology that disagreed with some of his opinions and personal ideas. Additional evidence from his writing supports the existence of Luther’s ulterior motives. In essence, Luther was looking for an excuse to eject those books at least from the OT which did not support his views.  How convenient!

But, Luther was not done there! Martin Luther even wanted to remove books from the New Testament. For example, he wanted to remove the Epistle from James, because it destroyed his "Faith Alone" self-inaugurated dictum. In His own writing he says, "..James gives me much trouble, I will throw James into the fire and make rubble of it." Luther’s approach and rants do not convey that of a God-fearing faithful servant of God. Rather they are the rantings of a pride-filled and arrogant, man. He ended up not doing this because his closest friends protested and warned him that he would be going too far.

As a side note: It is interesting to note, that the original King James English version (KJV) of the Bible, which many protestants and evangelicals hold as the one true bible, in its first version contained all the Books found in the Catholic Bible. There still exist today copies of this original edition. Unfortunately after the publication of the first edition of the KJV Bible, with Protestantism sweeping much of Europe, the editors of the KJV Bible capitulated and removed what they ended up referring to as "extra" books found in the "Catholic Canon."

So at the end of the discussion, It was not the “Catholics” who allegedly “Added” books to the Bible. Instead, it was Martin Luther and those who chose to follow His broken rubric for discerning the OT canon of the Bible who removed them. In His arrogance, he “removed” books from the Bible that were inspired by God, and these were books that the church guided by His Holy Spirit was given authority to include in the OT.

____________________________________

[1] Aramaic was a later form of the Jewish language. Scholars agree that this language was the predominant Jewish vernacular during the time of Jesus and His Apostles.

 Regardless of any debate Protestants and Catholics may enter regarding the list of Old Testament books, there are two stronger pieces of evidence to suggest the early Christians had access to and used the OT list of books as found in the Septuagint. These points support the list of Old Testament books in the Catholic Bible.

·   1a.) New Testament writers had already accepted the Septuagint version of the Old Testament because they quoted from it in their writings.

·   1b.) First-century extra-Christian documents quote from the Septuagint’s list of Old Testament books to a greater extent.

·   1c) The Early Church fathers not only quoted from the Books of the OT as included in the Septuagint. In certain cases they named them.

·   2.) In 1948 the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls found the library of the Essenes. The Essenes were a Jewish sect that existed before and during the time of Christ. The library of the Essenes was contemporary with the Septuagint. A complete copy of books listed in the Septuagint’s list was found, except for the Book of Esther.

The library of the Essenes was contemporary to the time of Jesus, the surrounding Jewish communities at large, and the first-century Christians. This library is also dated older than the Hasmonean Dynasty. The library existed from around 220 - 200 B.C. until it was destroyed by the Romans between 70 – 75 AD.

When considering other first-century Christian writings there still exists a copy of a letter that Barnabas wrote. In the New Testament, you find Barnabas was a companion of St. Paul. Because he seems to be in par with St. Paul it is considered he may have been a Bishop as well. Therefore, He was indeed a first-century Christian. In his letter, he is quoting from the Book of Wisdom. The book of Wisdom is found in the Septuagint and Essene list for the Old Testament. (But not in the TaNaK or the Protestant OT)

“Since therefore, [Christ] was about to be manifested and to suffer in the flesh, his suffering was foreshown. For the prophet speaks against evil, ‘Woe to their soul, because they have counseled an evil counsel against themselves.’ [Isaiah 3:9], saying, ‘Let us bind the righteous man because he is displeasing to us.’ [Wisdom 2:12].[1]  

Another early church document called The Didache was written between 90 – 100 AD. It contains directions for liturgical practices for the 1st-century church. It discusses the Mass and the use of Baptism. In its instruction, it quotes from the book of Sirach found in the Septuagint version of the Old Testament.

You shall not waver with regard to your decisions. [Sirach 1:28]

Do not be someone who stretches out his hand to receive but withdraws them when it comes to giving. [Sirach 4:31]

This is just a small piece of evidence showing how early Christians used the list from the Septuagint and accepted it as authentic Old Testament scripture.

____________________________

[1] Letter of Barnabas 6:7 [A.D. 74]

The 27 books of the New Testament were written as inspired by the Holy Spirit. From the authority given by Christ, these books were written, used, and accepted by the apostles. This Authority continued with their subsequent bishops. Christ commissioned the Apostles to make disciples of all nations, teach what He taught, and Baptize them in the “Name of the Father and of the Son and the Holy Spirit.”[1] During the apostolic period, the Apostles preached the Gospel as Jesus asked them. They also commissioned others to do the same. Initially, the gospel (good news of Jesus Christ) as well as instructions of the faith as inspired by God's Holy Spirit were given verbally. Later, individuals inspired by God put into writing the gospels as well as letters of instruction. The NT writings came directly from eyewitnesses of Jesus Christ and from those who followed the Apostles.

A few centuries after the Apostles, the Church with its authority declared the canon for written deposit of divine revelation from God, for the New Testament. This was given equal status with the Old Testament from the Septuagint list, This was done despite the fact the apostles’ successors still produced letters, instructions, and catechetical documents which were benefiting the church. Though it may be argued these later items were inspired by the Holy Spirit, the Church did not add these as part of the Bible.

In the initial centuries, bishops in various areas created lists of what they discerned were authentic scripture for purposes of reading to the community, within its liturgy, and for catechesis. In 100 AD the Church developed the first Canon of the Old Testament; the Alexandrian Canon in Greek.

After many years of deliberation and discussion, in 382 AD  Pope Damasus prompted the council of Rome and wrote a decree listing the 73-book canon for Old and New Testament books of the Bible. In subsequent councils, the Council of Hippo in 393 AD and the Council of Carthage in 397 AD the lists were confirmed and again ratified by the Pope. In 405 AD Pope St. Innocent I approved the 73-book canon and closed the canon of the Bible for Old and New Testaments. This  Canon was reaffirmed and confirmed in the later councils of Florence, Trent, and Vatican I for various reasons and as a way to testify to the authority from earlier church history regarding the Canon of the Bible.

The reaffirmations and confirmations were just that. These councils in the wake of controversy and heresy found it necessary to remind the faithful and further convey what constitutes the inspired written word and where it came from. The list of books found in the Canon of the Catholic Bible as coming from the council of Rome mandated by Pope Damasus, remained the same. No debates were recorded to add or remove books from the Bible in any of the subsequent councils.

_______________________

[1] Matthew 28:19-20

Protocanonical: (from the Greek word proto meaning first) The term is used to refer to those books of the Bible that were admitted into the canon with little or no debate.

Deuterocanonical: (from the Greek word deuteron meaning second) The term applies to those manuscripts of the Bible that were under discussion for a while until doubts about their canonicity were resolved.

Apocryphal: (from the Greek Word Apokryphos meaning hidden) This term has been used to apply different meanings:

·       A Complimentary meaning – that the manuscript in question is too exalted for the general public.

·       Pejorative meaning – that the orthodoxy of the book is questioned

·       Heretical meaning – That the book is forbidden to be read

·       Neutral meaning – simply non-canonical books, (this is the common meaning typically used today)

Pseudepigrapha: (from the Greek meaning false writing) used for works considered to be false.