This is a "page in progress." I'm learning as I continue to research.
Should you find an error, please let me know.
As this topic is one of the fundamental differences between Catholicism & Protestantism, I am going to devote an entire page to the canon of the Old Testament.
Please feel free to use the links below to navigate throughout this page's content.
Please feel free to use the links below to navigate throughout this page's content.
Development of the Canon
Introduction & Basic Definition
The Septuagint and other early Biblical texts have become an issue of serious debate. The reason for this is because the Old Testament in Protestant and Catholic Bibles is not the same. The Catholic Bible contains 46 books. 7 of these books (and minor additions to other books) were removed by Luther in the 16th century and placed in a separate section. The trend of separating these books from the Bible was continued by the other Protestant churches and then many started removing them all together.
Much of the debate surrounds the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament. 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 aloud in Hebrew (such as in the synagogue) 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. "
We must, at this point, understand THAT THERE WAS NO "ONE" VERSION OF THE SEPTUAGINT. Before we go any further. This is something that a lot of websites, books, and people gloss over. They refer to "The Septuagint" as if it were a modern copy of the Bible, with all books firmly in place. From this point forward, I will refer to Septuagint as LXX for the sake of convenience.
I'm also adding a great quote about the Septuagint from: "Exploring the Origins of the Bible" This quote sums up what is so misunderstood.
"Most scholars do not actually believe that there was a book (codex) form of the Septuagint at the turn of the millennia, but they still talk about “the Septuagint,” as if Paul, for example, had gone to the local Alexandrian Bible Society bookstore in Tarsus and purchased his own bound copy of The Septuagint, from which he preached." (Evan & Tov, p.192).
Much of the debate surrounds the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament. 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 aloud in Hebrew (such as in the synagogue) 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. "
We must, at this point, understand THAT THERE WAS NO "ONE" VERSION OF THE SEPTUAGINT. Before we go any further. This is something that a lot of websites, books, and people gloss over. They refer to "The Septuagint" as if it were a modern copy of the Bible, with all books firmly in place. From this point forward, I will refer to Septuagint as LXX for the sake of convenience.
I'm also adding a great quote about the Septuagint from: "Exploring the Origins of the Bible" This quote sums up what is so misunderstood.
"Most scholars do not actually believe that there was a book (codex) form of the Septuagint at the turn of the millennia, but they still talk about “the Septuagint,” as if Paul, for example, had gone to the local Alexandrian Bible Society bookstore in Tarsus and purchased his own bound copy of The Septuagint, from which he preached." (Evan & Tov, p.192).
Define Our Terms
Before we go further, let's define our terms. [Note: I will probably be adding to these definitions as we go along.]
Apocrypha: 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.
Deuterocanonical: this term came into being during the Reformation by the Catholics. Before this, the 7 books (and additions to others) had not been separated from the Old Testament in any way; they weren't a special category and were interspersed with the other books. Thus, the Catholics had no special name for them. With the Reformation referring to these 7 Biblical books as Apocrypha- which obviously had negative connotations- another term had to be invented. Hence, deuterocanonical. In the long run, this only confused matters because now that four centuries have passed, some ill-informed individuals grab onto the fact these books are called the "deuterocanon" as proof they weren't ever in the Bible.
Canon originally meant that it was a valid scripture and used during the liturgy. I'm going to quote from Catholic Bridge 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."
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).
Great Unicles: The most important LXX manuscripts (because of their stage of preservation, text quality, and relative age) are the following codices (books), commonly referred to as the Great Uncials. The term "uncial" indicates that they were written using capital letters only, for the Greek alphabet used no small ("miniscule") letters until several centuries later. Following are the contents of the Great Uncials:
• Codex Sinaiticus (4th century), labeled Aleph: Genesis...Numbers...Joshua (part); Judges...1-2 Chronicles; 1 Esdras; Ezra-Nehemiah; Tobit; Judith; 1 & 4 Maccabees; Isaiah; Jeremiah; Lamentations; the Twelve (incomplete); Psalms; Proverbs; Ecclesiastes; Song of Songs; Wisdom of Solomon; Sirach; Job.
Certain books are missing/lost. Psalms contains Psalm 151 as part of the regular Psalter.
• Codex Vaticanus (4th century), labeled B: Genesis - Deuteronomy; Joshua son of Nun; Judges; Ruth; 1-4 Kingdoms; 1-2 Chronicles; 1 Esdras; Ezra-Nehemiah; Psalms - Sirach; Esther; Judith; Tobit; the Twelve; Isaiah; Jeremiah; Baruch; Lamentations; Letter of Jeremiah; Ezekiel; Daniel
• Codex Alexandrinus (5th century), labeled A: Genesis - 2 Chronicles; the Twelve; Isaiah - Daniel; Esther; Tobit; Judith; 1 Esdras; Ezra-Nehemiah; 1-4 Maccabees; Psalms; Job; Proverbs; Ecclesiastes; Song of Songs; Widsom of Solomon; Sirach
Psalm 151 is included as "outside the number." the Psalms of Solomon is listed in the table of contents for the codex but is not found in the codex itself.
Masoretic Text (MT): 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. Recent archeological findings (among them the Dead Sea Scrolls) give 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).
Apocrypha: 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.
Deuterocanonical: this term came into being during the Reformation by the Catholics. Before this, the 7 books (and additions to others) had not been separated from the Old Testament in any way; they weren't a special category and were interspersed with the other books. Thus, the Catholics had no special name for them. With the Reformation referring to these 7 Biblical books as Apocrypha- which obviously had negative connotations- another term had to be invented. Hence, deuterocanonical. In the long run, this only confused matters because now that four centuries have passed, some ill-informed individuals grab onto the fact these books are called the "deuterocanon" as proof they weren't ever in the Bible.
Canon originally meant that it was a valid scripture and used during the liturgy. I'm going to quote from Catholic Bridge 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."
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).
Great Unicles: The most important LXX manuscripts (because of their stage of preservation, text quality, and relative age) are the following codices (books), commonly referred to as the Great Uncials. The term "uncial" indicates that they were written using capital letters only, for the Greek alphabet used no small ("miniscule") letters until several centuries later. Following are the contents of the Great Uncials:
• Codex Sinaiticus (4th century), labeled Aleph: Genesis...Numbers...Joshua (part); Judges...1-2 Chronicles; 1 Esdras; Ezra-Nehemiah; Tobit; Judith; 1 & 4 Maccabees; Isaiah; Jeremiah; Lamentations; the Twelve (incomplete); Psalms; Proverbs; Ecclesiastes; Song of Songs; Wisdom of Solomon; Sirach; Job.
Certain books are missing/lost. Psalms contains Psalm 151 as part of the regular Psalter.
• Codex Vaticanus (4th century), labeled B: Genesis - Deuteronomy; Joshua son of Nun; Judges; Ruth; 1-4 Kingdoms; 1-2 Chronicles; 1 Esdras; Ezra-Nehemiah; Psalms - Sirach; Esther; Judith; Tobit; the Twelve; Isaiah; Jeremiah; Baruch; Lamentations; Letter of Jeremiah; Ezekiel; Daniel
• Codex Alexandrinus (5th century), labeled A: Genesis - 2 Chronicles; the Twelve; Isaiah - Daniel; Esther; Tobit; Judith; 1 Esdras; Ezra-Nehemiah; 1-4 Maccabees; Psalms; Job; Proverbs; Ecclesiastes; Song of Songs; Widsom of Solomon; Sirach
Psalm 151 is included as "outside the number." the Psalms of Solomon is listed in the table of contents for the codex but is not found in the codex itself.
Masoretic Text (MT): 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. Recent archeological findings (among them the Dead Sea Scrolls) give 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).
How is Canon Determined?
Before we go further in our study of the Old Testament, 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.
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.