Canon of the Bible

wayofthecross · #1 1st February 2012, 05:43 PM

How do we know that we are reading the correct version of the Bible? Who decided what books should be in the Bible and why do we believe that they are correct?
The confusion that I am having began with an article that I read about the Codex Sinaiticus. The article said that it was the oldest complete Bible and it was written some time in the fourth century. The new Testament has the same books as today, but the old testament contains 10 additional books that I did not know about: 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, 1 & 4 Maccabees, Wisdom and Sirach. What I am confused about is why these books are not in my Bible? It seems like the early Christians that put this Bible together thought that they were inspired scripture. Otherwise, they would not have included them.

I apologize for my ignorance on this subject, I have just never heard of this before. If these books were important enough to include in their Bible it bothers me that we do not have them in our Bibles now.

MPaul · #2 1st February 2012, 08:40 PM

Hello,

Catholics and Protestants establish the canon differently. When the Reformation happened, reviewing what is the canon immediately became very important, as it is the basis of Sola Scriptura, or only the bible is the ultimate authority. Protestants base the canon on principles taken from the bible on how it is to be recognized. Catholics essentially say that the canon is the canon because they say so, because the RCC is above the bible.

The issues on the canon from the Protestant perspective are very complex, and entire books are written on the subject. However, so that just the average Christian can have an understanding of the essentials, I wrote an article on the basics called, "How Protestants Establish the Canon of Scripture." At the below link, scroll down to the brown box on the left and you will see a link to the article.

www.loveofchrist.info

The modern translations use the Critical Text for the New Testament, which relies primarily on two ancient manuscripts, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. 90% of all manuscript evidence is thrown out, due to a theory by Westcott and Hort from the 19th century, that says there was a revision of the Greek text, that corrupted the majority of manuscripts. This revision has been disproven, but scholars still cling to the Westcott and Hort theory, because it establishes scholars as an elite class of Christians. The majority text can be reconstructed by quotations of the church fathers from earlier centuries than Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, but the scholars say the Critical Text theory still has precedence, because there is not an actual manuscript from the earlier centuries.

The scholars never point out that text critics much better than Westcott and Hort established that Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are the two worst specimens of manuscript copying in existence, with constant errors and multiple revisions. But there is a mountain of dishonesty on the issues involving manuscripts, and that makes any discussion on them in an open forum impossible. (However, I went over the issues involved in the Pentecostal forum a while back, in a thread titled, "Finding Ruth's Soul in Translation.")

chilehed · #3 1st February 2012, 09:01 PM

You're correct, prior to the Reformation all Christians believed that those books are canonical. The earliest list of the canon came out of the councils of the 4th Century, and it included all of those books. There was no more real debate on the matter until the Reformation.

Non-Catholics tend to believe that those books were wrongly added by the Catholic Church in an attempt to support teachings that contradict legitimate Christian thought, and that they should be rejected. They would point out that the Jews of the late 1st Century AD rejected those books.

Catholics hold that those books were correctly included in the canon from the beginning, and that they were ripped out by Luther on his own authority because they contradicted his novel theological inventions. They'd point out the Jews themselves included those books in the canon until they proved effective in the conversion of Jews to Christianity.

There's a lot of debate about this topic.

MPaul · #4 1st February 2012, 09:41 PM

Originally Posted by chilehed

You're correct, prior to the Reformation all Christians believed that those books are canonical. The earliest list of the canon came out of the councils of the 4th Century, and it included all of those books. There was no more real debate on the matter until the Reformation.

Non-Catholics tend to believe that those books were wrongly added by the Catholic Church in an attempt to support teachings that contradict legitimate Christian thought, and that they should be rejected. They would point out that the Jews of the late 1st Century AD rejected those books.

Catholics hold that those books were correctly included in the canon from the beginning, and that they were ripped out by Luther on his own authority because they contradicted his novel theological inventions. They'd point out the Jews themselves included those books in the canon until they proved effective in the conversion of Jews to Christianity.

There's a lot of debate about this topic.

Wrong!!!! The Apocrypha was thrown out on the basis that it did not conform to the principles given to Moses for how an accredited prophet who could write Scripture was recognized. One of those principles is, that the Jews who were in control of the temple (or tabernacle before that) established who an accredited prophet was. No Jews in control of the temple accepted the Apocrypha. Jews who lived in other regions in North Africa did, but only by utilizing principles which violated Scripture.

Early Christians debated what books were in the bible. That is why there were lists. The Apocrypha was noted as having a secondary status by those who put it with the canon. The RCC included it without recognition of the Scriptural principles for establishing the bible. It was essentially arbitrary, and they could have included the Pope's favorite recipe for chicken soup if they had wanted to.

However, the RCC also made the Latin Vulgate and the Greek Septuagint inspired Scripture, again entirely ignoring the principles of Scripture for how it is established. Luther correctly noted that a translation cannot be inspired Scripture, unless it is an actual quotation in Scripture by a verified prophet.

Actually, according to those principles, the Popes would have been stoned to death in Old Testament times for the positions they take on being the equivalent to the Word of God.

Luther's theology was not a novel invention. It is based on the bible. Holy Tradition is an invention -- it is based on what was considered divine about the Roman Empire, which was incorporated into the Catholic church. It is not Scriptural.

hedrick · #5 1st February 2012, 10:10 PM

Fortunately we don't believe in things that are established in only one part of the Bible.

The extra books you're talking about were in the Greek translation of the Old Testament used by ancient Jews. It had books not present in the Hebrew canon. Even in Jesus' time, both existed. The Hebrew canon was used by and large in Palestine and the Greek version in the rest of the Jewish community, where Greek was spoken.

Many (most?) early Christians would have used the Greek version. However it's likely that Jesus himself would have used the Hebrew, just because of where he lived and his language. During the Reformation the goal was to get back to the original sources of Christianity. They used the Hebrew OT, because, after all, Hebrew is the original. (There are some issues with that, but it was their reasoning.)

In fact I don't think it's critical which one you use. We are primarily followers of Jesus. He fulfills the covenant and the teachings of the prophets. We learn about that from the OT. However the Hebrew canon has the critical parts of the covenant. The additional books add later parts of the history, and are interesting. But it doesn't really change Christianity one way or the other.

I should note that many Protestants translations currently have editions with the extra books. The ones I use do. However I wouldn't quote them as Scripture in a Protestant context.

I'm not commenting on MPaul's statements, as I thought your question was about the canon. There's more to be said on the question of establishing the text.

MPaul · #6 1st February 2012, 10:46 PM

Originally Posted by hedrick

Fortunately we don't believe in things that are established in only one part of the Bible.

The extra books you're talking about were in the Greek translation of the Old Testament used by ancient Jews. It had books not present in the Hebrew canon. Even in Jesus' time, both existed. The Hebrew canon was used by and large in Palestine and the Greek version in the rest of the Jewish community, where Greek was spoken.

Many (most?) early Christians would have used the Greek version. However it's likely that Jesus himself would have used the Hebrew, just because of where he lived and his language. During the Reformation the goal was to get back to the original sources of Christianity. They used the Hebrew OT, because, after all, Hebrew is the original. (There are some issues with that, but it was their reasoning.)

In fact I don't think it's critical which one you use. We are primarily followers of Jesus. He fulfills the covenant and the teachings of the prophets. We learn about that from the OT. However the Hebrew canon has the critical parts of the covenant. The additional books add later parts of the history, and are interesting. But it doesn't really change Christianity one way or the other.

I should note that many Protestants translations currently have editions with the extra books. The ones I use do. However I wouldn't quote them as Scripture in a Protestant context.

I'm not commenting on MPaul's statements, as I thought your question was about the canon. There's more to be said on the question of establishing the text.

The Septuagint was made by Greek speaking Jews in North Africa. They declared the Apocryphal books as canon using a basis not found in the bible, but in contradiction to Scriptural principles. This is set out in more detail in the article that I wrote that I referenced in my first post, with a link.

The Protestants debated the Apocryphal books for 150 years. The real problem in establishing the canon is determining relevant evidence according to Scriptural criterion. The Protestants accepted the testimony of the Jews in control of the temple, as it is Scriptural and as it is the best evidence of the actual verification of an accredited prophet.

The issue of what is the canon is extremely important to Portestants, as it is the basis of Sola Scriptura -- that is what the Protestants wanted to get back to, what God established as authority. God made clear to Moses, (after the people requested to have a prophet speak to them, rather than God himself, as it was too terrifying), that the people only had to listen to an accredited prophet, not someone who merely presumed to speak for God, which person should be stoned to death. The writings of an accredited prophet were stored in the temple. When there was no prophet, only these writings had authority. Thus, the Protestants had to make certain they identified the correct books as Scripture.

It is a very interesting question you bring up -- does this issue change Christianity?

ebia · #7 3rd February 2012, 04:47 AM

Originally Posted by MPaul

The Septuagint was made by Greek speaking Jews in North Africa. They declared the Apocryphal books as canon using a basis not found in the bible, but in contradiction to Scriptural principles. This is set out in more detail in the article that I wrote that I referenced in my first post, with a link.

The Protestants debated the Apocryphal books for 150 years. The real problem in establishing the canon is determining relevant evidence according to Scriptural criterion. The Protestants accepted the testimony of the Jews in control of the temple, as it is Scriptural and as it is the best evidence of the actual verification of an accredited prophet.

The issue of what is the canon is extremely important to Portestants, as it is the basis of Sola Scriptura -- that is what the Protestants wanted to get back to, what God established as authority. God made clear to Moses, (after the people requested to have a prophet speak to them, rather than God himself, as it was too terrifying), that the people only had to listen to an accredited prophet, not someone who merely presumed to speak for God, which person should be stoned to death. The writings of an accredited prophet were stored in the temple. When there was no prophet, only these writings had authority. Thus, the Protestants had to make certain they identified the correct books as Scripture.

It is a very interesting question you bring up -- does this issue change Christianity?

Exactly how do you know which scrolls were stored in the temple?

Incariol · #8 3rd February 2012, 04:53 AM

Originally Posted by wayofthecross

How do we know that we are reading the correct version of the Bible? Who decided what books should be in the Bible and why do we believe that they are correct?
The confusion that I am having began with an article that I read about the Codex Sinaiticus. The article said that it was the oldest complete Bible and it was written some time in the fourth century. The new Testament has the same books as today, but the old testament contains 10 additional books that I did not know about: 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, 1 & 4 Maccabees, Wisdom and Sirach. What I am confused about is why these books are not in my Bible? It seems like the early Christians that put this Bible together thought that they were inspired scripture. Otherwise, they would not have included them.

I apologize for my ignorance on this subject, I have just never heard of this before. If these books were important enough to include in their Bible it bothers me that we do not have them in our Bibles now.

The books you give are in my Bible. They are indeed canonical, declared Scripture in the 4th/5th century.

They were edited out by later reformers, reprehensibly, because they didn't like them. I think Luther did some Bible editing as one...

MPaul · #9 3rd February 2012, 09:21 AM

Originally Posted by ebia

Exactly how do you know which scrolls were stored in the temple?

It is a matter of record which Jews were in control of the temple. They were not in North Africa.

MPaul · #10 3rd February 2012, 09:30 AM

Originally Posted by Incariol

The books you give are in my Bible. They are indeed canonical, declared Scripture in the 4th/5th century.

They were edited out by later reformers, reprehensibly, because they didn't like them. I think Luther did some Bible editing as one...

According to principles of Scripture, the councils of the 4th and 5th centuries were quite mistaken. The issue of whether the Apocryphal books were canon was first brought up when Catholics were debating Luther. The Catholics cited these books as authority, but Luther said they were not. Protestants then went on to the debate the issue for about 150 years. By then, most Protestant groups had excluded them.

I see you are Anglican -- the Anglicans accept certain Catholic traditions. However, the Reformation was first about excluding Catholic tradition as authority, and upholding only the bible as authority. Thus, we have different bibles. However, how the canon is established is the crux of the difference between Catholics and Protestants. Any comparison between the groups has to begin with how the canon is established, which biblical principles also establish Sola Scriptura as the only ultimate authority. Personally, I think it is ridiculous to critically evaluate the differences between the groups without reference to how the canon is established, and how that is the basis of authority for Protestants.