The Old Testament Canon

Who preserved the books of the Old Testament? What are the books of the Hebrew scriptures? When did Christians know what they were?

This article will look to the Bible and historical records to attempt to answer those questions.

To the Jews

The Apostle Paul taught,

What advantage then has the Jew, or what is the profit of circumcision? Much in every way! Chiefly because to them were committed the oracles of God (Romans 3:1-2).

The term in the New Testament for oracle, means inspired writings. And based upon historical records this was so, as the Jews in Palestine preserved what we call the Old Testament.

Jesus, of course, grew up in Palestine, and thus it is reasonable to conclude that He used the same books of the Old Testament as were preserved by the Jews in Palestine.

John Ogwyn explains some of the details,

The portion of the Bible that we commonly call the Old Testament was completed in the days of Ezra the Priest and Governor Nehemiah, about 420bc. Ezra was sent by King Artaxerxes of Persia to Jerusalem in 457bc with the temple scrolls and other treasures which had been kept in Babylon since the days of Nebuchadnezzar (Ezra 7:14). Ezra came back to teach Scripture to the people (v. 10) and to institute religious reform for people who were on the verge of losing their very identity and absorbing the syncretistic paganism of their neighbors. About thirteen years after Ezra’s return, Nehemiah returned as governor and had the authority to insist that Ezra’s reforms be carried out. The first century Jewish historian and priest, Flavius Josephus, recorded the history of the Hebrew Scriptures and contrasted them to the Greek writings extant in his day. "For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another [as the Greeks have], but only 22 books… which are justly believed to be divine…" (Against Apion, 1, 8). Josephus went on to state that the Jewish scriptures had been compiled in their final form in the days of King Artaxerxes, who reigned in the days of Ezra and Nehemiah. He emphasized that, while many books had been composed among the Jews since that time, they were not considered to have divine authority, because there had not been a succession of prophets since the time of Malachi, a late contemporary of Ezra and Nehemiah. In addition to Josephus, the book of 1 Maccabees (second century bc), writings by the first century ad philosopher Philo, and traditions preserved in Seder Olam and the Talmud (ancient commentaries) all testify to a fixed canon since the time of Ezra. The 22 books mentioned by Josephus correspond to the books of our Old Testament—normally counted as 39 books in modern translations. The difference in number is because of a difference in the way the books were counted. The 12 Minor Prophets, for instance, were kept on one scroll in Hebrew, and were counted as simply one book, not as 12 separate ones. There are several other combinations as well" (Ogwyn J. How Did We Get The Bible? TW. January-February 2002).

A modern Catholic scholar has confirmed that it was widely believed in the second century that the preservation of the Old Testament was given to the Jews in Palestine:

The preservation of the texts among the Jews gave occasion to the anonymous author of Exhortations to the Greeks to draw this conclusion (PG 6, 268): "Today also the Jews guard the books that belong to our religion. This was a work of Divine Providence for our advantage, so as not to give rise to suspicion of any falsity to those who wish to speak ill of us, when we bring them from the church; and therefore we wish to bring them to the synagogue of the Jews, so that from these books, guarded also by them, it may be evident that the laws written by holy men for teaching clearly and evidently belong to us". (Bagatti, Bellarmino.  Translated by Eugene Hoade.  The Church from the Gentiles in Palestine, Part 1, Chapter 1.  Nihil obstat: Ignatius Mancini. Imprimi potest: Herminius Roncari. Imprimatur: +Albertus Gori, die 28 Februarii 1970.  Franciscan Printing Press, Jerusalem, p. 19).

Priest Bagatti also acknowledged that when Melito went to verify the list/canon of Old Testament books, that he went to the Jews in Palestine, not Egypt (Ibid, pp. 18-19). It should be noted that Melito held what we consider to be Church of God doctrines that, although the Church of Rome considers him to be a saint, that the Church of Rome condemns (for example, see Melito of Sardis).

Here are some comments from the Jewish Encyclopedia:

"Books." This word, which in Daniel ix, means all the sacred writings, occurs frequently in the Mishna...the Apocrypha...were not included in the libraries of the Temple or the synagogues. (Bible Canon, Chapter 2. Jewish Encyclopedia. 1906. ©2002-2011, JewishEncyclopedia.com)

Complete or Incomplete?

As far as the Old Testament being complete, the Jewish Encylopedia claims that all evidence supports that the following from a writer named Zunc is correct:

...long before the destruction of the Temple, and not long after Sirach was translated, the Holy Writings comprised their present cycle. (Chapter 8)

The Jewish Encyclopedia also teaches in the Tosefta (considered a supplement to the Mishnah, the oral traditions), that, "Neither the Ben Sira nor any of the books written thereafter" are canonical (Ibid, Chapter 10).

John Ogwyn noted:

How can we know that the text of the Old Testament has been accurately preserved? The Jewish community has officially preserved the Old Testament in what is called the Masoretic Text. How was this done? Note the explanation from Appendix 30 of The Companion Bible: "The text itself had been fixed before the Masorites were put in charge of it… the Masorites were authorized custodians of it. Their work was to preserve it. The Masorah is called ‘A Fence to the Scriptures,’ because it locked all words and letters in their places.… It records the number of times the several letters occur in the various books of the Bible; the number of words, and the middle word; the number of verses, and the middle verse… for the set purpose of safeguarding the Sacred Text, and preventing the loss or misplacement of a single letter or word." This meticulous attention to detail provides a background for understanding the literal truth of Jesus’ statement in Matthew 5:18 that not one jot or one tittle would pass from the Law. The jot refers to the smallest letter in the Hebrew alphabet and the tittle describes a part of a letter (Ogwyn J. How Did We Get The Bible? Tomorrow's World, LCG Magazine. January-February 2002).

The simple fact was that in Jesus' day, there still were scribes (e.g. Matthew 17:12). And these scribes not only copied (transcribed) scripture, they counted each character and cross-checked it to ensure that it was as error free as possible.

It should be added that there was a something called Council of Jamnia, which may have taken place around 90 A.D., which discussed the appropriate books of the Hebrew scriptures. This Jewish council allegedly confirmed the canon authoritatively for nearly all Jews (some scholars have questioned its authenticity). It, if held, really made no changes, and it basically only discussed a few books. But the books that are attributed to this possible council are the same books now used by Protestants and the Continuing Church of God (which is not Protestant).

Yet, The Catholic Encyclopedia claims:

...that there is a smaller, or incomplete, and larger, or complete, Old Testament. Both of these were handed down by the Jews; the former by the Palestinian, the latter by the Alexandrian, Hellenist, Jews. The Jewish Bible of today is composed of three divisions, whose titles combined from the current Hebrew name for the complete Scriptures of Judaism: Hat-Torah, Nebiim, wa-Kéthubim, i.e. The Law, the Prophets, and the Writings. This triplication is ancient; it is supposed as long-established in the Mishnah, the Jewish code of unwritten sacred laws, reduced to writing, c. A.D. 200. A grouping closely akin to it occurs in the New Testament in Christ's own words, Luke, xxiv, 44: "All things must needs be fulfilled, which are written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms concerning me". Going back to the prologue of Ecclesiasticus, prefixed to it about 132 B.C., we find mentioned "the Law, and the Prophets, and others that have followed them" (Reid G. Canon of the Old Testament. Transcribed by Ernie Stefanik. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume III. Copyright © 1908 by Robert Appleton Company. Online Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. Knight. Nihil Obstat, November 1, 1908. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York).

However, Irenaeus, a Roman supporter, around 180 wrote:

After this fashion also did a presbyter, a disciple of the apostles, reason with respect to the two testaments, proving that both were truly from one and the same God...

For all the apostles taught that there were indeed two testaments among the two peoples; but that it was one and the same God who appointed both for the advantage of those men (for whose sakes the testaments were given) who were to believe in God (Irenaeus. Adversus haereses, Book IV, Chapter 32, Verse 1,2. Excerpted from Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 1. Edited by Alexander Roberts & James Donaldson. American Edition, 1885. Online Edition Copyright © 2004 by K. Knight).

Hence Irenaeus is clearly claiming that the apostles knew the books of the Old and New Testaments. Thus he believed that the early church did have the entire canon of the Bible. I suspect that the presbyter, a disciple of the apostles Irenaeus is referring to was Polycarp or Melito. And if so, this shows that the church in Asia Minor had the complete biblical canon very early on.

Polycarp Was a Disciple of John and Originally Knew the Books

Polycarp of Smyrna made it clear that those he wrote to that he and they had the correct Bible otherwise he would not have written:

For I trust that ye are well versed in the Sacred Scriptures, and that nothing is hid from you; but to me this privilege is not yet granted. It is declared then in these Scriptures, "Be ye angry, and sin not," and, "Let not the sun go down upon your wrath." (Polycarp. Letter to the Philippians. From Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 1as edited by Alexander Roberts & James Donaldson. American Edition, 1885).

Note that Polycarp quoted a verse that is in the New Testament, when he used the term Scriptures.

Perhaps it also should be mentioned that there is a document known as the Harris Fragments (ca. 2nd or 3rd century) that also discusses Polycarp.  Basically it stresses that Polycarp’s connection with the Apostle John, indicates he was baptized at age 18, suggests he was appointed bishop of Smyrna by John, and that he died at martyr’s death at age 104. Here are some translated quotes from the Harris Fragments, with one addition from me in {}:

There remained [---]ter him a disciple[e ---] name was Polycar[p and] he made him bishop over Smyrna…He was… {an} old man, being one hundred and f[our] of age.  He continued to walk [i]n the canons which he had learned from his youth from John the a[p]ostle (Weidman, Frederick W.  Polycarp and John: The Harris Fragments and Their Challenge to Literary Traditions.  University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame (IL), 1999, pp. 43-44)

By mentioning the term “canons” (which seems to be in the singular form in the actual Greek--Weidman, oddly displays what appears to be a combination of upper and lower case Greek characters “ΚαΝΝωΝ”  as the original source for the translation on p. 25) the Harris Fragments could possibly be suggesting that John passed the knowledge of the proper books of the Bible to Polycarp—and that would seem to be the case.  But even if canon(s) meant only the measure of the right way to be a Christian, then all should realize that to be faithful to apostolic Christianity that they should imitate Polycarp and John as they did Christ (cf. 1 Corinthians 11:1).

A later leader in Asia Minor, Polycrates of Ephesus, claimed that he had the complete Bible (circe 193 A.D.):

I, therefore, brethren, who have lived sixty-five years in the Lord, and have met with the brethren throughout the world, and have gone through every Holy Scripture...I did not bear my gray hairs in vain, but had always governed my life by the Lord Jesus (Eusebius. The History of the Church, Book V, Chapter XXIV, Verses 2-7 . Translated by A. Cushman McGiffert. Digireads.com Publishing, Stilwell (KS), 2005, p. 114).

Melito's List

While it is true that it was the Jews that originally were to maintain what is now called the Old Testament canon, there was one early Church leader who essentially listed it. And that was Melito of Sardis.

It appears that even though those of Asia Minor knew the correct books from the time of the Apostle John and Polycarp, that some questions arose that Melito of Sardis decided would be best to investigate.

And that was Melito of Sardis. The following written by Melito is From the Book of Extracts:

Melito to his brother Onesimus, greeting:--

As you have often, prompted by your regard for the word of God, expressed a wish to have some extracts made from the Law and the Prophets concerning the Saviour, and concerning our faith in general, and have desired, moreover, to obtain an accurate account of the Ancient Books, as regards their number and their arrangement, I have striven to the best of my ability to perform this task: well knowing your zeal for the faith, and your eagerness to become acquainted with the Word, and especially because I am assured that, through your yearning after God, you esteem these things beyond all things else, engaged as you are in a struggle for eternal salvation.

I accordingly proceeded to the East, and went to the very spot where the things in question were preached and took place; and, having made myself accurately acquainted with the books of the Old Testament, I have set them down below, and herewith send you the list. Their names are as follows:--

The five books of Moses--Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Joshua, Judges, Ruth, the four books of Kings, the two of Chronicles, the book of the Psalms of David, the Proverbs of Solomon, also called the Book of Wisdom, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, Job, the books of the prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, of the twelve contained in a single book, Daniel, Ezekiel, Esdras. From these I have made my extracts, dividing them into six books (Melito. From the Book of Extracts.  Cited in Eusebius.  The History of the Church, Book IV, Chapter XXVI. Digireads.com Publishing, Stilwell (KS), 2005 edition. p. 90).

(The above is the Roberts and Donaldson translation. While some translators believe that the “Wisdom” is a separate book, even The Catholic Encylopedia concluded that only the “protocanonicals” are in Melito’s list.)

These are the books in the Old Testament used by most Jews, Protestants, and those in the COGs (Esther is believed by The Catholic Encyclopedia to have been left out for political reasons as it shows the Jews killing many of their enemies--but it may have been combined with others in that list, because the Jews tended to combine it with Ezra).

It should be noted that Melito claims this was an accurate list. The fact that Melito calls these the books of the Old Testament demonstrates the deuterocanoconical books were not accepted and that the Church had to have had a New Testament (please see the related article on The New Testament Canon).

It should also be noted that since the Jews sometimes combined Nehemiah with Ezra, that perhaps Melito actually listed all the Old Testament books. If punctuation, which was not in extensive use when this letter was written, is added differently than some translators have come up with on their own, look at what the last paragraph from Melito above shows:

The five books of Moses--Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. Joshua, Judges, Ruth, the four books of Kings, the two of Chronicles, the book of the Psalms of David, the Proverbs of Solomon, also called the Book of Wisdom. Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, Job, the books of the prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, of the twelve contained in a single book. Daniel, Ezekiel, Esdras, from these I have made my extracts, dividing them into six books.

Hence if one adds up 5 + 1 + 1 +1 + 4 +2 + 1 + 1 +1 + 1 +1 + 1 + 1 + 12 + 6, one ends up with 39 books. The same number that is in modern Old Testaments (other than those with the later additions, sometimes called the deuterocanonical books, that Melito did not accept).

An Anglican scholar noted:

This fragment is highly significant as the first Christian Old Testament canon. It is also of interest that Melito traveled to Palestine, and is thus an indication that this is the Old Testament canon known by Palestinian Christians, and perhaps Jews (Stewart-Sykes A. Melito of Sardis On Pascha. St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, Crestwood (NY), 2001, p. 72).

Even The Catholic Encyclopedia notes this about Melito's list,

St. Melito, Bishop of Sardis (c. 170), first drew up a list of the canonical books of the Old Testament. While maintaining the familiar arrangement of the Septuagint, he says that he verified his catalogue by inquiry among Jews; Jewry by that time had everywhere discarded the Alexandrian books, and Melito's Canon consists exclusively of the protocanonicals minus Esther. It should be noticed, however, that the document to which this catalogue was prefixed is capable of being understood as having an anti-Jewish polemical purpose, in which case Melito's restricted canon is explicable on another ground (Reid).

Amazingly then, even though The Catholic Encyclopedia calls Melito a saint and admits that he verified his list with the Jews, the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Bibles, while understanding possibly why Esther was not listed (Esther talks about Jews avenging themselves on their enemies, but I believe that it was combined together with Nehemiah and Ezra, which was the pattern consistent with what was done by the Jews then), include 10 additional books (or parts of books) in the Old Testament that Melito did not list.

The Catholic Encyclopedia also notes:

St. Jerome, speaking of the canon of Melito, quotes Tertullian's statement that he was esteemed a prophet by many of the faithful. (Hudleston G.R. Transcribed by Kenneth M. Caldwell. St. Melito. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume X Copyright © 1911 by Robert Appleton Company, NY. Nihil Obstat, October 1, 1911. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York, pp. 166-167)

(Interestingly, according to Polycrates, Melito was a Bishop of Smyrna, between Polycarp and Polycrates, and he kept the Passover on Nisan 14 in accordance with the Gospel, and in violation of what was then being done in Rome--see Eusebius. Church History. Book V, Chapter 24).

Other Books?

In a rather weak attempt to try to justify its use of additional books, The Catholic Encyclopedia states:

St. Justin Martyr is the first to note that the Church has a set of Old Testament Scriptures different from the Jews', and also the earliest to intimate the principle proclaimed by later writers, namely, the self-sufficiency of the Church in establishing the Canon; its independence of the Synagogue in this respect (Reid).

Specifically, Justin claimed, that the Jews ("they") removed scriptures,

And I wish you to observe, that they have altogether taken away many Scriptures from the translations effected by those seventy elders who were with Ptolemy...Trypho remarked, "Whether[or not] the rulers of the people have erased any portion of the Scriptures, as you affirm, God knows; but it seems incredible." "Assuredly," said I, "it does seem incredible" (Justin Martyr. Dialogue with Trypho, Chapters 71,73).

Justin seemed to teach that Jewish leaders removed passages from the Bible though it is not clear that he taught that books were missing (Ibid. Chapters 71-73).

Justin Martyr, while in Ephesus, admitted that he did not live differently than the Gentiles (in violation of Paul's admonition in Ephesians 4:17), taught God's law was not in force, and did not observe the Sabbaths or the other Holy Days that the early Church did (this is all documented in the article, Location of the Early Church: Another Look at Ephesus, Smyrna, & Rome). And, apparently, did not accept the quite the same content of the books that the disciples did for the Old Testament (he seemed to teach that the Jews eliminated parts). It may be important to note that Justin wrote BEFORE Melito, and Melito did not include any of the deuterocanonical books in his list.

After Justin Martyr left Ephesus he became influential in Rome. Eusebius noted,

And in Rome ...Anicetus assumed the leadership of the Christians there... But Justin was especially prominent in those days (Eusebius Church History. Book IV, Chapter 11).

So prominent, that Justin's influence was used as justification that ultimately led to the adoption of extra books of in the Old Testament that were not in those scriptures used by Christ and the original apostles. This may have simply happened because others may have noted that since Justin claimed the Jews removed scriptures, that this justified adding books that Justin never referred too!

The Deuterocanonical Books

The books that the Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox tend to call the deuterocanonical books, are normally called the Apocrypha or the apocryphal books associated with the Old Testament (there are also ones associated with the New Testament, but no non-gnostic group accepts them--they are specifically rejected by Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Protestants, and those in the Churches of God).

These books were not included in Melito's list of the 2nd century. They were also rejected in the third and fourth centuries by Catholic scholars such as Origen, Athanasius, and Jerome, essentially because they understood that the books were not properly accepted by the Jews and did not agree with certain church teachings:

St. Jerome cast his weighty suffrage on the side unfavourable to the disputed books...Jerome lived long in Palestine, in an environment where everything outside the Jewish Canon was suspect, and that, moreover, he had an excessive veneration for the Hebrew text, the Hebraica veritas as he called it....the inferior rank to which the deuteros were relegated by authorities like Origen, Athanasius, and Jerome, was due to too rigid a conception of canonicity, one demanding that a book, to be entitled to this supreme dignity, must be received by all, must have the sanction of Jewish antiquity, and must moreover be adapted not only to edification, but also to the "confirmation of the doctrine of the Church", to borrow Jerome's phrase (Reid, Old Testament Canon).

Jerome did not simply consider these additions were inferior. Notice that he specifically stated that the churches condemned the Septuagint additions to the Book of Daniel:

In reference to Daniel...I also told the reader that the version read in the Christian churches was not that of the Septuagint translators but that of Theodotion. It is true, I said that the Septuagint version was in this book very different from the original, and that it was condemned by the right judgment of the churches of Christ...I repeat what the Jews say against the Story of Susanna and the Hymn of the Three Children, and the fables of Bel and the Dragon, which are not contained in the Hebrew Bible (Jerome. Apology Against Rufinus, Book II, Chapter 33).

The Septuagint version includes a section called Bel and the Dragon--a section that the original does not have, but that has been now accepted by the Roman Catholic Church as part of the deuterocanonical books.

Furthermore, Jerome specifically challenges the validity of the Septuagint and states that the Hebrew Bible was used by Jesus and the Apostles:

The Hebrew Scriptures are used by apostolic men; they are used, as is evident, by the apostles and evangelists. Our Lord and Saviour himself whenever he refers to the Scriptures, takes his quotations from the Hebrew; as in the instance of the words "He that believes in me, as the Scripture has said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water," and in the words used on the cross itself, "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani," which is by interpretation "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" not, as it is given by the Septuagint, "My God, my God, look upon me, why have you forsaken me?" and many similar cases. I do not say this in order to aim a blow at the seventy translators; but I assert that the Apostles of Christ have an authority superior to theirs. Wherever the Seventy agree with the Hebrew, the apostles took their quotations from that translation; but, where they disagree, they set down in Greek what they had found in the Hebrew. (Jerome. Apology Against Rufinus, Book II, Chapter 34)

Cyril of Jerusalem also indicated that the Apocraphal books were considered to be of lesser reliability as he wrote:

We speak not from apocryphal books, but from Daniel; for he says, And they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and half a time . A time is the one year in which his coming shall for a while have increase; and the times are the remaining two years of iniquity, making up the sum of the three years; and the half a time is the six months. (Cyril of Jerusalem. Catechetical Lecture 15 On the Clause, And Shall Come in Glory to Judge the Quick and the Dead; Of Whose Kingdom There Shall Be No End, Chapter 16. Translated by Edwin Hamilton Gifford. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 7. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1894.) Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight. <http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/310115.htm>)

And, the Roman Catholic Church knows its leaders had concerns about these books for centuries:

THE CANON OF THE OLD TESTAMENT DURING THE FOURTH, AND FIRST HALF OF THE FIFTH, CENTURY

In this period the position of the deuterocanonical literature is no longer as secure...Alexandria, with its elastic Scriptures, had from the beginning been a congenial field for apocryphal literature, and St. Athanasius, the vigilant pastor of that flock, to protect it against the pernicious influence, drew up a catalogue of books with the values to be attached to each. First, the strict canon and authoritative source of truth is the Jewish Old Testament, Esther excepted...Following the precedent of Origen and the Alexandrian tradition, the saintly doctor recognized no other formal canon of the Old Testament than the Hebrew one; but also, faithful to the same tradition, he practically admitted the deutero books to a Scriptural dignity, as is evident from his general usage...

THE CANON OF THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM THE MIDDLE OF THE FIFTH TO THE CLOSE OF THE SEVENTH CENTURY

This period exhibits a curious exchange of opinions between the West and the East, while ecclesiastical usage remained unchanged, at least in the Latin Church. During this intermediate age the use of St. Jerome's new version of the Old Testament (the Vulgate) became widespread in the Occident. With its text went Jerome's prefaces disparaging the deuterocanonicals, and under the influence of his authority the West began to distrust these and to show the first symptoms of a current hostile to their canonicity...

The Latin Church

In the Latin Church, all through the Middle Ages we find evidence of hesitation about the character of the deuterocanonicals. (Reid, Canon of the Old Testament. The Catholic Encyclopedia).

Also notice that even Athanasius in the fourth century really did not consider that the deuterocanonical books were actually scripture, and that Jerome in the fifth century made disparaging comments about them. And even into the Middle Ages, the RCC was not sure if the deuterocanonical books were on a par with scripture!

So when were these books actually adopted?

The Catholic Encyclopedia also states,

The protocanonical books of the Old Testament correspond with those of the Bible of the Hebrews, and the Old Testament as received by Protestants. The deuterocanonical (deuteros, "second") are those whose Scriptural character was contested in some quarters, but which long ago gained a secure footing in the Bible of the Catholic Church, though those of the Old Testament are classed by Protestants as the "Apocrypha". These consist of seven books: Tobias (Tobit), Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, I and II Machabees, and three documents added to protocanonical books, viz., the supplement to Esther, from x, 4, to the end, the Canticle of the Three Youths (Song of the Three Children) in Daniel, iii, and the stories of Susanna and the Elders and Bel and the Dragon, forming the closing chapters of the Catholic version of that book...The ancient Greek Old Testament known as the Septuagint was the vehicle which conveyed these additional Scriptures into the Catholic Church. The Septuagint version was the Bible of the Greek-speaking, or Hellenist, Jews, whose intellectual and literary centre was Alexandria (see SEPTUAGINT). The oldest extant copies date from the fourth and fifth centuries of our era...The most explicit definition of the Catholic Canon is that given by the Council of Trent, Session IV, 1546...The order of books copies that of the Council of Florence, 1442, and in its general plan is that of the Septuagint (Reid, Old Testament Canon).

Thus, it took until 1546 for these books to be completely adopted by the Roman Catholic Church.

But why then?

Here is the view of one writer,

There is a mistaken belief among some that the Apocrypha books were part of the Bible, and that these were rejected by the Protestant Reformers. On the contrary, the Apocrypha books were never a part of the Old Testament Canon. Thus there is no question of the Reformers dropping out some books from the Canon. Rather, it is the Roman Catholic Church which ADDED these books to the Canon by a proclamation made at the Council of Trent...

With the Protestant Reformation, many of the Reformers challenged the Catholic church to prove their doctrine by supporting these from the Canon. To their dismay the Roman Catholics discovered that many of their doctrines are not derived from the Canon. At the same time they realized that at least some of these erroneous doctrines are supported by the Apocrypha. Thus for their survival it became necessary to add the Apocrypha to the Canon.

In 1545 the Roman Catholic Church convened what is called the Council Of Trent. Here they passed numerous resolutions, including many curses against the Protestant Believers. In April 1545 the Council declared that the Apocrypha are also part of the Bible. Thus for the first time in history the Apocrypha books were ADDED by the Roman Catholic church to the Bible. This was done in order to justify their doctrinal errors (for which support was available only in the Apocrypha), and also to oppose the Protestant believers. The first Vatican Council held 1869-70 reaffirmed the decision of the Roman Catholic Church to add the Apocrypha to the Canon.

Historically and theologically the Apocrypha was never part of the Canon (Philip Johnson C. Reliability Of The Canon. Indus School of Apologetics and Theology Textbook No -004A1, version used in 2006).

The Roman Catholics were not the only ones to adopt those so-called deuterocanonical books. The Orthodox Church did as well. However, their scholars admit that they are not on the same level as the other books they consider to be scripture:

The Orthodox Church...as...its authoritative text for the Old Testament, it uses the ancient Greek Septuagint. When this differs from the original Hebrew (which happens quite often), Orthodox believe that the changes in the Septuagint were made under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and are to be accepted as part of God's continuing revelation...The Hebrew version of the Old Testament contains thirty-nine books. The Septuagint contains in addition ten further books not present in the Hebrew, which are known in the Orthodox Church as the 'Deutero-Canonical Books'. These were declared by the Councils of Jassy (1641) and Jerusalem (1672) to be 'genuine parts of Scripture'; most Orthodox scholars...consider that the Deutero-Canonical Books, although part of the Bible, stand at a lower footing than the rest of scripture (Ware T. The Orthodox Church, p.200).

This is astounding.

While the Bible clearly teaches, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work" (2 Timothy 3:16-17), apparently the Orthodox (and Roman Catholic) Church apparently believes that the Hebrew Old Testament needed to be corrected and expanded. And as their own literature admits, the Romans finally listed the ones they accepted in one place in 1546 and the Orthodox apparently did not officially finalize their list until about 100 years later!

And they took what Greek-speaking Jews (as opposed to the Hebrews of Palestine) preferred--even though other writings of these groups admit that it was the Palestinian Christians (those initially based from Jerusalem, and those that would have relied on the canon of the Palestinian Jews) that "kept the faith in purity" (see article Location of the Early Church: Another Look at Ephesus, Smyrna, & Rome).

It should be noted that the New Testament makes it clear that the original disciples were Palestinian Hebrews and not from the Hellenists (e.g. Acts 6:1-2). Paul was not a Hellenist either (Acts 9:26-29).

The Church of God Had the Full Canon from the Beginning

While some believe that because the Church of Rome held meetings to determine the canon for itself (and that to a major degree the Protestants followed many of the decisions), the reality is that the Church of God had the books from the beginning.

This is confirmed in many sources. For example, in the early third century, Serapion, Bishop of Antioch, and a supporter of COG doctrines, taught that the proper books were “handed down to us” (Eusebius. The History of the Church, Book VI, Chapter XII, verses 3-4, p. 125-126), thus negating the idea of a late canonization for the faithful.

Notice that around the end of the 4th century, the "Nazarenes" (people who held Church of God doctrines like the Sabbath) knew that they had the scriptures and that they came from God, not a Greco-Roman council. Jerome wrote that the Nazarenes stated:

…God has given us the Law and the testimonies of scriptures. (Jerome, cited in Pritz R.  Nazarene Jewish Christianity.  Magnas, Jerusalem, 1988, p. 63)

The Catholic Bishop and saint Epiphanius similarly taught about the Nazarenes:

For they use not only the New Testament but also the Old (cited in Pritz, p. 33)

Now, while many believe that because of the Latin Vulgate Bible by Jerome, that the Catholic Church gave the world the Bible, those who espouse that view overlook the question of where Jerome got his information. Based on records in Latin and other languages, Scholars Ray Pritz and the Catholic Priest Bagatti both concluded that Jerome got some of his information on the Bible from the Nazarenes and from various synagogues (Pritz, pp. 49-53; Bagatti, Bellarmino. Translated by Eugene Hoade. The Church from the Circumcision. Nihil obstat: Marcus Adinolfi, 13 Maii 1970. Imprimi potest: Herminius Roncari, 14 Junii 1970. Imprimatur: +Albertus Gori, die 26 Junii 1970. Franciscan Printing Press, Jerusalem, 1971, pp. 84-85).

It is a fact that Jerome did deal with “Nazarene Christians” who kept the Sabbath, etc. (Jerome. Letter 112 to Augustine, Chapter 4). Jerome also wrote that he was friendly with at least:

“one of the Hebrews that believed” (Translation by Priest Bagatti of Jerome, Epistula CXXV, Chapter 12.  Patrologia Latina (22, 1079). The edition by J. P. Migne, c. 1886, p. 1079.  http://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/02m/0347-0420,_Hieronymus,_Epistolae_Secundum_Ordinem_Temporum_Distributae,_MLT.pdf viewed 11/14/11--the actual Latin is also shown in the article The New Testament Canon - From the Bible and History)

Thus, it is logical to conclude that Jerome got some of his information from people who held to Church of God doctrines.

Therefore, then it would appear that the claim that the Roman “Church gave the world the Bible” neglects to mention that their church most likely got the Bible from those in the true Church of God, also known as the Nazarenes in Asia Minor and in Jerusalem!

This seems to be indirectly acknowledged by some modern scholars. Notice a 21st century account by Gerd Theissen:

Therefore we can advance the hypothesis that above all those writings entered the canon on which the Christian communities of Asia Minor and Rome could agree. (Theissen G, Translated by John Bowden. Fortress introduction to the New Testament. Fortress Press, 2003, p. 178)

Taking this a step further, even those who later compromised in Asia Minor apparently recognized that they knew of the complete canon and thus they (and probably others) influenced the Church of Rome.

For further proof that the faithful Sabbath-keeping Christians had the canon from the beginning but that the Roman-supporters did not, there is an interesting early second century writing that can be found in the article The New Testament Canon - From the Bible Itself.

Quotes in the New Testament from the Greek

Here is what the Catholic priest Jerome wrote about the Book of Matthew and its use of the Old Testament,

Matthew, also called Levi, apostle and aforetimes publican, composed a gospel of Christ at first published in Judea in Hebrew for the sake of those of the circumcision who believed, but this was afterwards translated into Greek though by what author is uncertain. The Hebrew itself has been preserved until the present day in the library. at Caesarea which Pamphilus so diligently gathered. I have also had the opportunity of having the volume described to me by the Nazarenes of Beroea, a city of Syria, who use it. In this it is to be noted that wherever the Evangelist, whether on his own account or in the person of our Lord the Saviour quotes the testimony of the Old Testament he does not follow the authority of the translators of the Septuagint but the Hebrew. Wherefore these two forms exist "Out of Egypt have I called my son, " and "for he shall be called a Nazarene" (Jerome. De Viris Illustribus (On Illustrious Men). Excerpted from Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Volume 3. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. American Edition, 1892. Online Edition Copyright © 2005 by K. Knight).

I simply cited that to show that Hebrew is what was normally what was used for scripture in Palestine.

But, since nearly all of the New Testament was written in Greek, it is logical that Greek translations were sometimes quoted.

John Ogwyn noted,

Should we be concerned that some New Testament quotations from the Old Testament were taken from a Greek translation—the Septuagint—rather than from the Hebrew Masoretic Text? Greek was the most universal language at the time when the New Testament was being written. Gentile converts were unfamiliar with the Hebrew language and even most Jews outside of Palestine no longer had a good reading knowledge of Hebrew. The Septuagint was a Greek translation of the Old Testament that had been made in Egypt. But it was not the only Greek translation of the Old Testament available in the time when the New Testament was written. There was at least one Greek translation that differed significantly from the Septuagint. It was used by Theodotion in the second century ad for his revised Greek text of the Old Testament. The book of Daniel, as preserved in Greek translation by Theodotion, matches far more closely the quotations from Daniel in the New Testament than does the Septuagint, for instance. Though none of the Greek translations of the Old Testament were totally accurate, most of their deviations from the Hebrew text were in areas that did not affect the overall sense of the message...Gleason Archer and G. C. Chirichigno in their comprehensive work, Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament: A Complete Survey, make the following points about New Testament quotations: 1) in 268 New Testament citations both the Septuagint and Masoretic Text are in complete harmony; 2) in 50 citations the New Testament agrees with the Septuagint, even though it differs slightly from the Masoretic Text (although not seriously enough to distort the meaning); 3) in 33 citations the New Testament adheres more closely to the Masoretic Text than to the Septuagint; 4) in 22 citations the New Testament adheres closely to the Septuagint even when it deviates somewhat from the Masoretic Text. The New Testament writers only made use of Septuagint quotations if those passages properly conveyed the inspired meaning of the Hebrew text (Ogwyn J. How Did We Get The Bible? Tomorrow's World, LCG Magazine. January-February 2002).

New Testament Predicted in the Old

Perhaps it should be added that there is a passage in the Old Testament that predicts a New Testament as it shows that the disciples would essentially finalize the Bible. Notice:

16 Bind up the testimony, Seal the law among my disciples (Isaiah 8:16).

While other portions of this article have shown that various of Christ's disciples were involved, the above verse suggests that there would be no additions "to the law and to the testimony" (an expression for the Bible, see Isaiah 8:20), after those disciples were gone. Isaiah is thus indicating that the original disciples would have finalized the New Testament--that would include people such as Peter, Paul, and John. For additional information, please see the article The New Testament Canon - From the Bible and History.

Conclusion

The Jews in Palestine were tasked with preserving the books of the Old Testament, which were almost exclusively written in Hebrew and naturally contained no Greek. This is what Jesus and the disciples would have normally used.

Melito, one-time Bishop of Smyrna (and a saint even according to Catholic sources), stated that the books of the Old Testament were those that he listed. And those that he listed were those from the Palestinian Jews (the so-called protocanonical books) and did not include one book from the additional ones that the Hellenists preserved (sometimes called deuterocanonical books). And note that Melito, according to Catholic sources, knew that the Jews had not accepted the books of the Hellenistic Alexandrians.

The 39 books that are in the Old Testaments that those in the COGs and Protestant Churches use are the correct books of the Old Testament. Only the antinomian Justin Martyr, and those that supported some of his heresies or the heresies of others, supported that the Christian Church would use different books than the Palestinian Jews. And, of course, those in the true Church of God (as well as most Protestants), never accepted this.

Even the Catholic supporting saint and doctor Jerome recognized some of the flaws of the deuterocanonical books--hence he based upon his initial research also only really accepted the 39 books as truly valid and apparently consulted partially with those with Church of God doctrines when he put his books together.

The true Old Testament canon is based on the biblical criteria and this canon essentially was affirmed during the 2nd century by one considered to have been faithful (Melito). And while it is true that “the Church gave the world the Bible”--it was the church established by Christ through the apostles Peter, Paul, and John and their successors as inspired by the Holy Spirit that did so. The Church of God which Polycarp and other early saints were part of.

Back to Early Christianity page

Back to home page

Thiel B. The Old Testament Canon. www.cogwriter.com (c) 2005/2006/2007/2008/2009/2010/2011/2012 0602