As we start to go further in discussing the Canon, we will run across common references to other sources. One of these is the abbreviation "MT" for the "Masoretic Text."  [Note: I will probably be adding to this definition as we go along.] 

The Masorah (also spelled Massorah) is technically a "system of critical notes on the external form of the Biblical text. This system of notes represents the literary labors of innumerable scholars, of which the beginning falls probably in pre-Maccabean times and the end reaches to the year 1425" (JewishEncyclopedia, Masorah). 

The Masoretic Text "is the authoritative Hebrew text of the Tanakh for Rabbinic Judaism."  The official version of the Hebrew Old Testament as it exists today (Evan & Tov, p.21).  Until the sixth century A.D. only the consonants of the Hebrew OT were written down; the language contained no vowels.  The tradition of correct pronunciation of ancient Hebrew words was passed down orally.  Between A.D. 500 and 1000, a group of Jewish scholars known as the Masoretes (from 'maser,' to hand down, transmit) developed a system of adding vowels, accents, and notes that guaranteed more accurate reading and copying of the ancient text.  No other text from the ancient world was as carefully safeguarded as the Masoretic Text. Its tradition came to be regarded as authoritative and can still be considered highly trustworthy.  The Masoretes themselves date from the early Christian period until the Middle Ages.

In existence today: The earliest complete Masoretic manuscript, the Leningrad Codex (A.D. 1009) is used for the standard edition of the Hebrew Bible.  Another source states that the standard for Hebrew Bibles printed today is the Masoretic Text from A.D. 1088, currently housed in the Saint Petersburg Public Library. Another ancient copy, although partially lost, is the Aleppo Codex (A.D. 925) 

The founding of the Dead Sea Scrolls has shown amazing consistency between the Masoretic Text and the original scrolls, even though they are separated by 1,100 years.  This gives much credence to the idea that the Masoretic Text is a reliable copy that is faithful to the original meaning intended by the writers of the OT. In other places, though, the LXX has proved to have been closer to "the original meaning" (entire books on textual criticism can be looked into if you are interested in this subject). 



The material for these posts will probably end up filling many pages when I'm done, but I'll be posting as I go along in "quick bites" for people who are interested in such things. But this means that I won't have read everything or know everything (if such a thing is possible) when I write each blog post. I'm learning as I continue to research. Should you find an error, please let me know! Please, please, reference "Canon History" for the most up-to-date, accurate information!

Before we go further in our study of the Old Testament, the Septuagent, and the Apocrypha, we need to accept one fact. 
It must be addressed by both Catholics and Protestants and is often overlooked in the arguments over the "when, where, what, by who" of books being added/used/confirmed by various scholars, both Jewish and Christian. 
Yes, the debates will get that detailed. (I know, you're breathless with anticipation.) 

This fact is: we have to decide which books are canonical somehow. The Bible does not - cannot - do so on its own. So we (all Christians: Catholics and Protestants) must look to both authority and criteria. But which authority do we choose? Christians disagree. For now, let's look at the criteria for what is canon. And what it is not.  

The word "canon" comes from the Greek "κανών", meaning "rule" or "measuring stick". The concept is believed to have predated Christ, though. First we'll look at a couple of criteria that are often cited, but are invalid.

• Is it divinely inspired?
No book of the Bible claims itself to be divinely inspired. Jesus never left a list of Old Testament books to be followed (nor a list of New Testament books…which would be out of order choronologically…but not impossible for God). "The term 'inspired' (Greek, theopneustos) only occurs once in the Bible (2 Tm 3:16), where we are told that all Scripture is inspired. 

We first know that something is Scripture and then infer that it is inspired; we do not first know that it is inspired and then conclude it is Scripture" (Catholic Answers, ref. 1). Now, other sections of the Bible may indicate previous sections were inspired (by saying "God spoke" or "the Spirit spoke"), but we must acknowledge that something can claim to be inspired, but not actually be so. (The Book of Mormon, for example). 

• Does it agree with doctrine? 
This is a circular argument. Some people don't like the idea of praying for the dead, for example, so they point to 2 Maccabbees and say "it isn't canon." Here is the thing, though: just because someone doesn't personally like a practice or doctrine in the Bible doesn't mean it shouldn't be in the Bible. We get our doctrines and beliefs from the Bible; not the other way around. 

However, there is some merit to the argument. If doctrine clearly disagrees with another section of the Bible (a section which is generally deemed to be of high authority), then we can start to consider it a valid argument. 
Even then, we have to realize this is a complex argument. James 2:24 and Romans 4:3 (accepted by all Christians as canonical) teach different things: salvation by faith or by faith plus works? Many things appear contradictory in scripture; Christians attempt to reconcile these things all of the time. 


The following are canon requirements that are generally agreed upon, but still with reservations. The debate comes in when we start arguing over who/what/when. 

• Was the author an apostle or have a close connection with an apostle? Or in the OT, what the author a prophet or have a close connection with a prophet? 
The argument comes in as to who "qualifies" as a prophet or apostle and what defines as "closely connected" with them. We also have the slight problem of Esther, who wasn't a prophet, but the book is universally accepted. And the Book of Wisdom, not accepted by Protestants, has prophecy in it. 

• Did the book bear evidence of high moral and spiritual values that would reflect a work of the Holy Spirit? Does it "ring true" with the reader? (Sometimes states as the book "transforms" the reader). 
This is almost entirely subjective, thus while it makes sense to have as criteria, it usually does not lead to consensus among Christians. 

• Is the book being accepted by the body of Christ at large? (There will always be individuals who do not agree; what do Christians as a whole- especially those who are learned- think?)
This is where the debate comes in, as well as the "we must accept authority." We will address these questions- at length- below. Along with discussions of what various individuals thought. There is an entire (in progress) page dedicated to lists of canon at various times. The major ones will be listed at the top in chronological order, with the others listed alphabetically. See: "Canon Lists Throughout History" page for this. 


Thus, after looking at this subject, we find that the Bible does not (and can not) state what is Scripture. More bluntly, the Bible didn't come with a table of contents. And Jesus didn't leave us "to read" list of books. Thus, we will turn to authority. Our best authorities are those closest to Christ. So…we shall look to history. 


****Note: The material for these posts will probably end up filling many pages when I'm done, but I'll be posting as I go along in "quick bites" for people who are interested in such things. But this means that I won't have read everything or know everything (if such a thing is possible) when I write each blog post. I'm learning as I continue to research. Should you find an error, please let me know! Please, please, reference "Canon History" for the most up-to-date, accurate information!

One thing that happens in apologetics is that when you continue to research, you continue to learn. Yes, this is shocking, I know. 

I post as I learn about many things. Right now I'm studying the Septuagint and the development of Scripture. This will probably end up filling many pages when I'm done, but I'll be posting as I go along in "quick bites" for people who are interested in such things. But this means that I won't have read everything or know everything (if such a thing is possible) when I write each blog post. 

So, forgive the errors you run across in archived blog posts. If you run across an old blog post on here that doesn't seem quite right, please go check the site page it's copied onto. Or contact me. You might have found something I need to look into! 

As always, God is the reason for doing this. God is the reason I spend my time studying the Bible and why (I hope) you spend your time reading things like this site. Things will be updated and corrected on this site. I'm sure even after this site is long gone, people will continue reading the Bible and all the commentary/apologetics about the Bible and correct each other over things said by men (or women) centuries ago. 

And I hope we all- both as Christians and humans- spend our time not only reading God's word, but loving Him and each other. 

Before we go further, let's define our terms.

The tension-loaded "Apocrypha" as a term solely for the deuterocanonical books (Tobit, Judith, 1 & 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Ecclesiastes, and Baruch) and using the term to mean 'un-Biblical' is a Protestant trend. The original term "apocrypha" is medieval Latin, from Late Latin, neuter plural of apocryphus secret, from Greek apokryphos obscure, from apokryptein to hide away, from apo- + kryptein to hide. It was generally used by the early church fathers (and Jewish scholars before them) to indicate that EITHER the books were not used by them during their own particular liturgies OR that the books had questionable value and/or contents.  Its very earliest usage has been obscured by the passage of time, but it is "highly probable that in its original meaning an apocryphal writing had no unfavorable import, but simply denoted a composition which claimed a sacred origin, and was supposed to have been hidden for generations, either absolutely, awaiting the due time of its revelation, or relatively, inasmuch as knowledge of it was confined to a limited esoteric circle." There are many, many, many Apocryphal writings: among these are the 1st and 2nd books of Adam and Eve, Testament of Reuben, and Gospel of Thomas. The sole reason I have labeled this section of the website "Apocrypha" is because that is- for better or for worse- what the deuterocanonical books have come to be called.

Canon originally meant that it was a valid scripture and used during the liturgy. I'm going to quote from Catholic Bridge.com because they explain this concisely and it matches with what I've read elsewhere. Specifically note that I have read this same thought/ideas/facts at multiple other sources…this is simply a concisely put together definition:
     "Before the late 4th Century, each city-church had its own, local "canon" of the Bible, and these local canons differed from city-church to city-church ---some local canons including books which are currently excluded from our present Bible (such as 1 Clement to the Corinthians, or the Epistle of Barnabas, or the Book of Enoch, etc.), and some local canons excluding books which are currently included in our present Bible (such as the Epistle of James, and Hebrews, and 2 Peter, and 2 & 3 John, Jude, and Revelation). The reason that city-churches had different local canons is because city-churches had different local Liturgies --that is, the Liturgy (form of worship) in the city-church of Rome was different from the Liturgy (form of worship) in the city-Church of Corinth, or the city-church of Ephesus, or Antioch, or Jerusalem, etc. This included the yearly Liturgical calendar, with different city-churches celebrating different local feast days on any given date."
           http://www.catholicbridge.com/catholic/orthodox/why_orthodox_bible_is_different_from_catholic.php
For another, exhaustive, very long history of the term canon, see: http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Canon_of_the_Holy_Scriptures

Now, obviously, the term canon has grown to mean more. Currently, the term 'canon' is seen as identical with "Scripture" and/or "inspired" (aka- "official" Word of God). As I'm writing to an educated, but not scholastic audience, I am going to use the current "Apocrypha" and "canon" to mean "deuterocanonical books" and "official Scripture." This is both for ease of understanding and because, as times change, our word usage changes. 

Post 1 of this series was "Septuagint: Introduction and Basic Definition"



The material for these posts will probably end up filling many pages when I'm done, but I'll be posting as I go along in "quick bites" for people who are interested in such things. But this means that I won't have read everything or know everything (if such a thing is possible) when I write each blog post. I'm learning as I continue to research. Should you find an error, please let me know! Please, please, reference "Canon History" for the most up-to-date, accurate information!

Since it has been brought to my attention that the Septuagint and the Apocrypha books are a source of great division, I have decided (through a series of posts) to expand the original, quite short definition of the book I had. With each post, I will link back to the earlier ones as well as post on the new "Septuagint & Apocrypha" page in case one wishes to read the entire thing!  (& as always, thank you to those who give me feedback and let me know what my readers would like to see.) 

The Septuagint has become an issue of serious debate. The reason for this is because the Old Testament in Protestant and Catholic Bibles is different. The Catholic Bible contains the Apocrypha, which was later removed by Luther. The trend of removing these books from the Bible was continued by the other Protestant churches. The Septuagint is organized in the following order: the Pentateuch, followed by the historical, poetic, wisdom, and prophetic books.  The order is loosely followed by our English translations.  Due to the fact that various translators at various times with varying capabilities and styles. 

The Septuagint is the Greek translation of the Old Testament (both Hebrew and Aramaic). The title “Septuagint” is Latin for “seventy.”  Legend/tradition holds that 72 elders, working independently of one another, each produced an identical translation of the Hebrew Pentateuch into Greek around 285 B.C.  Originally designed for Greek-speaking Jews in Egypt, the Septuagint was completed by various translators in or around Alexandria between the third and first centuries B.C. The reason it was in Greek is because the vast majority of the people (including Jews) spoke Greek. It was fairly pointless to read the scripture in Hebrew because most couldn't understand it (much like why the Bible is read in English now; no one understood the Latin). 

It came to have great authority among the non-Palestinian Jews, and allowed the Greeks to read the divine revelation in their own tongue.  New Testament writers also relied heavily on the Septuagint, as a majority of Old Testament quotes cited in the New Testament are quoted directly from the Septuagint (others are quoted from the Hebrew texts). It is still the official text of the Greek Church. We know that when Jesus read the passage for the day, he was reading from the Septuagint. I thought this was an interesting side-note from Septuagint website: "The majority of the Septuagint, Masoretic Text and the Dead Sea Scrolls are remarkably similar and have dispelled unfounded theories that the Biblical text has been corrupted by time and conspiracy. "

The material for these posts will probably end up filling many pages when I'm done, but I'll be posting as I go along in "quick bites" for people who are interested in such things. But this means that I won't have read everything or know everything (if such a thing is possible) when I write each blog post. I'm learning as I continue to research. Should you find an error, please let me know! Please, please, reference "Canon History" for the most up-to-date, accurate information!