|
|
(from Koine Greek, tà biblía, "the books")
The Bible is a canonical collection of texts sacred in Judaism and Christianity. There is no single "Bible" and many Bibles with varying contents exist. Different religious groups include different books within their Biblical canons, in different orders, and sometimes divide or combine books, or incorporate additional material into canonical books. The writing of the Bible took place over sixteen centuries and is the work of over forty human authors, in three different languages, on three different continents. The Bible claims to be inspired and inerrant. This means that the Bible claims to be from God and that it is without error in everything it addresses. It is quite an amazing collection of 66 books with very different styles. This compilation of booklets contains an astonishing variety of literary styles. It provides many stories about the lives of good and bad people, about battles and journeys, about the life of Jesus, and about early church activity. It comes to us in narratives and dialogues, in proverbs and parables, in songs and allegories, in history and prophecy. The accounts in the Bible were not generally written down as they occurred. Rather they were told over and over again and handed down through the years, before evetually being written down. Yet the same themes may be found throughout the book.
Basically, the Bible describes the
origin of man in the Garden of Eden along with his fall into sin and
out of fellowship with God. It then describes how God called
out a special people to Himself, the Israelites. He promised
the Israelites a future Messiah who would restore mankind's
relationship with God. The Bible is the account of the work of
God in history bringing to fruition His prophetic declarations
concerning Jesus. Jesus was born of the Virgin, died on the
cross, and paid for sins, just as the Bible prophesied in the Old
Testament and fulfilled in the New. Some say that the Bible is nothing more than fairy tales. As you will learn by further reading, some of the Bible resembles Greek Mythology and other tales from all around the world. Again, the accounts in the Bible were not generally written down as they occurred. Rather they were told over and over again and handed down through the years, before evetually being written down. On the same note, a tale passed down gets generated like the Whisper Game or Telephone Game. Where players assemble in a straight line. The person at the beginning of the line thinks up a phrase and whispers it to the next person in line. That person whispers it to the next person, and so on, until everyone in the line has heard the phrase. The player at the end of the line calls out what he or she heard. Errors typically happen as the phrase goes down the line, so the statement announced by the last player could differ significantly from the one originally stated. However, it has been verified throughout history as being accurate. Its historical accounts are flawlessly accurate. In fact, archaeology routinely demonstrates the accuracy of the biblical records concerning locations and events recorded in the Bible. The Hebrew Bible, or Tanakh, contains twenty-four books divided into three parts:
Christian Bibles range from the
sixty-six books of the Protestant canon to the eighty-one books of
the Ethiopian Orthodox Church canon. By the 2nd century BCE Jewish groups had called the Bible books the "scriptures" and referred to them as "holy," or in Hebrew Kitvei hakkodesh, and Christians now commonly call the Old and New Testaments of the Christian Bible "The Holy Bible", in Greek, tà biblía tà ágia or "the Holy Scriptures" e Agía Graphe-'. An early 4th-century Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Bible is found in the Codex Vaticanus. Dating from the 8th century, the Codex Amiatinus is the earliest surviving manuscript of the complete Vulgate Bible. The oldest Tanakh manuscript in Hebrew and Aramaic dates to the 10th century CE. The Bible was divided into chapters in the 13th century by Stephen Langton and into verses in the 16th century by French printer Robert Estienne and is now usually cited by book, chapter, and verse. The Bible is widely considered to be the best selling book of all time, has estimated annual sales of 100 million copies, and has been a major influence on literature and history, especially in the West where it was the first mass-printed book. The Gutenberg Bible was the first Bible ever printed using movable type. Contents of This Page on "The Bible'
Hebrew
Bible The English word Bible is from the Latin biblia, from the same word in Medieval Latin and Late Latin and ultimately from Koine Greek ta biblia "the books" (singular biblion). Medieval Latin biblia is short for biblia sacra "holy book", while biblia in Greek and Late Latin is neuter plural (gen. bibliorum). It gradually came to be regarded as a feminine singular noun (biblia, gen. bibliae) in medieval Latin, and so the word was loaned as a singular into the vernaculars of Western Europe. Latin biblia sacra "holy books" translates Greek ta biblia ta hagia, "the holy books".
The word BIBAIOV itself had the
literal meaning of "paper" or "scroll" and came
to be used as the ordinary word for "book". It is the
diminutive of bublos, "Egyptian papyrus", possibly so
called from the name of the Phoenician sea port Byblos (also known as
Gebal) from whence Egyptian papyrus was exported to Greece. The Greek
ta biblia (lit. "little papyrus books") was "an
expression Hellenistic Jews used to describe their sacred books (the
Septuagint). Christian use of the term can be traced to c. 223 CE.
The biblical scholar F.F. Bruce notes that Chrysostom appears to be
the first writer (in his Homilies on Matthew, delivered between 386
and 388) to use the Greek phrase ta biblia ("the books") to
describe both the Old and New Testaments together. Development of The Bible Professor John K. Riches (writing for Oxford University Press) explained that "the biblical texts themselves are the result of a creative dialogue between ancient traditions and different communities through the ages", and "the biblical texts were produced over a period in which the living conditions of the writers – political, cultural, economic, and ecological – varied enormously". Timothy H. Lim, a professor of Hebrew Bible and Second Temple Judaism at the University of Edinburgh, states that the Old Testament "was not written by one man, nor did it drop down from heaven as assumed by fundamentalists. It is not a magical book, but a collection of authoritative texts of apparently divine origin that went through a human process of writing and editing." During the solidification of the Hebrew canon (c. 3rd century BCE), the Bible began to be translated into Greek, now referred to as the Septuagint. In Christian Bibles, the New Testament Gospels were derived from oral traditions (similar to the Hebrew Bible) in a period after Jesus's death: Scholars have attempted to reconstruct something of the history of the oral traditions behind the Gospels, but the results have not been too encouraging. The period of transmission is short: less than 40 years passed between the death of Jesus and the writing of Mark's Gospel. This means that there was little time for oral traditions to assume fixed form. The Bible was later translated into Latin and other languages. John Riches states that:
The translation
of the Bible into Latin marks the beginning of a parting of the ways
between Western Latin-speaking Christianity and Eastern Christianity,
which spoke Greek, Syriac, Coptic, Ethiopic, and other languages. The
Bibles of the Eastern Churches vary considerably: the Ethiopic
Orthodox canon includes 81 books and contains many apocalyptic texts,
such as were found at Qumran and subsequently excluded from the
Jewish canon. As a general rule, one can say that the Orthodox
Churches generally follow the Septuagint in including more books in
their Old Testaments than are in the Jewish canon. Hebrew Bible The Masoretic Text is the authoritative Hebrew text of the Hebrew Bible, or Tanakh. It defines the books of the Jewish canon, and also the precise letter-text of these biblical books, with their vocalization and accentuation. The oldest extant manuscripts of the Masoretic Text date from approximately the 9th century CE, and the Aleppo Codex (once the oldest complete copy of the Masoretic Text, but now missing its Torah section) dates from the 10th century. The name Tanakh reflects the threefold division of the Hebrew Scriptures, Torah ("Teaching"), Nevi'im ("Prophets") and Ketuvim ("Writings").
Torah The Torah is also known as the "Five Books of Moses" or the Pentateuch, meaning "five scroll-cases". The Hebrew names of the books are derived from the first words in the respective texts. The Torah consists of the following five books:
The first eleven chapters of Genesis provide accounts of the creation (or ordering) of the world and the history of God's early relationship with humanity. The remaining thirty-nine chapters of Genesis provide an account of God's covenant with the Biblical patriarchs Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (also called Israel) and Jacob's children, the "Children of Israel", especially Joseph. It tells of how God commanded Abraham to leave his family and home in the city of Ur, eventually to settle in the land of Canaan, and how the Children of Israel later moved to Egypt. The remaining four books of the Torah tell the story of Moses, who lived hundreds of years after the patriarchs. He leads the Children of Israel from slavery in Ancient Egypt to the renewal of their covenant with God at Mount Sinai and their wanderings in the desert until a new generation was ready to enter the land of Canaan. The Torah ends with the death of Moses. The Torah contains the commandments of God, revealed at Mount Sinai (although there is some debate among traditional scholars as to whether these were all written down at one time, or over a period of time during the 40 years of the wanderings in the desert, while several modern Jewish movements reject the idea of a literal revelation, and critical scholars believe that many of these laws developed later in Jewish history). These commandments provide the basis for Jewish religious law. Tradition states that there are 613 commandments (taryag mitzvot).
Nevi'im Nevi'im ("Prophets") is the second main division of the Tanakh, between the Torah and Ketuvim. It contains two sub-groups, the Former Prophets (Nevi'im Rishonim, the narrative books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings) and the Latter Prophets (Nevi'im Aharonim, the books of Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel and the Twelve Minor Prophets).
The Nevi'im tell the story of the
rise of the Hebrew monarchy and its division into two kingdoms,
ancient Israel and Judah, focusing on conflicts between the
Israelites and other nations, and conflicts among Israelites,
specifically, struggles between believers in "the LORD God"
and believers in foreign gods, and the criticism of unethical and
unjust behavior of Israelite elites and rulers; in which prophets
played a crucial and leading role. It ends with the conquest of the
Kingdom of Israel by the Assyrians followed by the conquest of the
Kingdom of Judah by the Babylonians and the destruction of the Temple
in Jerusalem. Former Prophets of Nevi'im The Former Prophets are the books Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings. They contain narratives that begin immediately after the death of Moses with the divine appointment of Joshua as his successor, who then leads the people of Israel into the Promised Land, and end with the release from imprisonment of the last king of Judah. Treating Samuel and Kings as single books, they cover:
Latter Prophets of Nevi'im The Latter Prophets are divided into two groups, the "major" prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel, and the Twelve Minor Prophets, collected into a single book:
Ketuvim Ketuvim or K?t_ûb_îm (in Biblical Hebrew: "writings") is the third and final section of the Tanakh. The Ketuvim are believed to have been written under the Ruach HaKodesh (the Holy Spirit) but with one level less authority than that of prophecy. The Poetic Books of The Ketuvim In Masoretic manuscripts (and some printed editions), Psalms, Proverbs and Job are presented in a special two-column form emphasizing the parallel stichs in the verses, which are a function of their poetry. Collectively, these three books are known as Sifrei Emet (an acronym of the titles in Hebrew, yields, which is also the Hebrew for "truth").
These three books are also the
only ones in Tanakh with a special system of cantillation notes that
are designed to emphasize parallel stichs within verses. However, the
beginning and end of the book of Job are in the normal prose system.
The Five Scrolls
of The
Ketuvim
The five relatively short books of
Song of Songs, Book of Ruth, the Book of Lamentations, Ecclesiastes
and Book of Esther are collectively known as the Hamesh Megillot
(Five Megillot). These are the latest books collected and designated
as "authoritative" in the Jewish canon even though they
were not complete until the 2nd century CE. Other Books of The Ketuvim Besides the three poetic books and the five scrolls, the remaining books in Ketuvim are Daniel, Ezra–Nehemiah and Chronicles. Although there is no formal grouping for these books in the Jewish tradition, they nevertheless share a number of distinguishing characteristics:
Order of The Books of The Ketuvim Coloured title page from the Bishops' Bible quarto edition of 1569, the British Museum. Queen Elizabeth sits in the centre on her throne. The words on the four columns read justice, mercy, fortitude and prudence, attributing these traits to the queen. Text at the bottom reads "God Save the Queene". The following list presents the books of Ketuvim in the order they appear in most printed editions. It also divides them into three subgroups based on the distinctiveness of Sifrei Emet and Hamesh Megillot. The Three Poetic Books (Sifrei Emet)
The Five Megillot
Other Books of The Ketuvim
The Jewish textual tradition never finalized the order of the books in Ketuvim. The Babylonian Talmud (Bava Batra 14b-15a) gives their order as Ruth, Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Lamentations of Jeremiah, Daniel, Scroll of Esther, Ezra, Chronicles.
In Tiberian Masoretic codices,
including the Aleppo Codex and the Leningrad Codex, and often in old
Spanish manuscripts as well, the order is Chronicles, Psalms, Job,
Proverbs, Ruth, Song of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, Lamentations of
Jeremiah, Esther, Daniel, Ezra. Canonization of The Ketuvim The Ketuvim is the last of the three portions of the Tanakh to have been accepted as biblical canon. While the Torah may have been considered canon by Israel as early as the 5th century BCE and the Former and Latter Prophets were canonized by the 2nd century BCE, the Ketuvim was not a fixed canon until the 2nd century of the Common Era. Evidence suggests, however, that the people of Israel were adding what would become the Ketuvim to their holy literature shortly after the canonization of the prophets. As early as 132 BCE references suggest that the Ketuvim was starting to take shape, although it lacked a formal title. References in the four Gospels as well as other books of the New Testament indicate that many of these texts were both commonly known and counted as having some degree of religious authority early in the 1st century CE.
Many scholars believe that the
limits of the Ketuvim as canonized scripture were determined by the
Council of Jamnia c. 90 CE. Against Apion, the writing of Josephus in
95 CE, treated the text of the Hebrew Bible as a closed canon to
which "... no one has ventured either to add, or to remove, or
to alter a syllable..." For a long time following this date the
divine inspiration of Esther, the Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes was
often under scrutiny. Original Languages of The Ketuvim
The Tanakh was mainly written in
biblical Hebrew, with some portions (Ezra 4:8–6:18 and
7:12–26, Jeremiah 10:11, Daniel 2:4–7:28) in biblical
Aramaic, a sister language which became the lingua franca of the
Semitic world. Septuagint from the Latin word septuaginta (meaning seventy) The Septuagint is a translation of the Hebrew Bible and some related texts into Koine Greek. The title and its Roman numeral acronym LXX refer to the legendary seventy Jewish scholars who completed the translation as early as the late 2nd century BCE. As the primary Greek translation of the Old Testament, it is also called the Greek Old Testament. This translation is quoted in the New Testament, particularly in the Pauline epistles, and also by the Apostolic Fathers and later Greek Church Fathers. The traditional story is that Ptolemy II sponsored the translation for use by the many Alexandrian Jews who were not fluent in Hebrew but fluent in Koine Greek, which was the lingua franca of Alexandria, Egypt and the Eastern Mediterranean at the time. The Septuagint should not be confused with the seven or more other Greek versions of the Old Testament, most of which did not survive except as fragments (some parts of these being known from Origen's Hexapla, a comparison of six translations in adjacent columns, now almost wholly lost). Of these, the most important are those by Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion. The Septuagint, or LXX, is a translation of the Hebrew scriptures and some related texts into Koine Greek, begun in the late 3rd century BCE and completed by 132 BCE, initially in Alexandria, but in time elsewhere as well. It is not altogether clear which was translated when, or where; some may even have been translated twice, into different versions, and then revised. As the work of translation progressed, the canon of the Greek Bible expanded. The Torah always maintained its pre-eminence as the basis of the canon but the collection of prophetic writings, based on the Nevi'im, had various hagiographical works incorporated into it. In addition, some newer books were included in the Septuagint, among these are the Maccabees and the Wisdom of Ben Sira. The Septuagint version of some Biblical books, like Daniel and Esther, are longer than those in the Jewish canon. Some of these deuterocanonical books (e.g. the Wisdom of Solomon, and the second book of Maccabees) were not translated, but composed directly in Greek. Since Late Antiquity, once attributed to a hypothetical late 1st-century Council of Jamnia, mainstream Rabbinic Judaism rejected the Septuagint as valid Jewish scriptural texts. Several reasons have been given for this. First, some mistranslations were claimed. Second, the Hebrew source texts used for the Septuagint differed from the Masoretic tradition of Hebrew texts, which was chosen as canonical by the Jewish rabbis. Third, the rabbis wanted to distinguish their tradition from the newly emerging tradition of Christianity. Finally, the rabbis claimed a divine authority for the Hebrew language, in contrast to Aramaic or Greek – even though these languages were the lingua franca of Jews during this period (and Aramaic would eventually be given a holy language status comparable to Hebrew).
The Septuagint is the basis for
the Old Latin, Slavonic, Syriac, Old Armenian, Old Georgian and
Coptic versions of the Christian Old Testament. The Roman Catholic
and Eastern Orthodox Churches use most of the books of the
Septuagint, while Protestant churches usually do not. After the
Protestant Reformation, many Protestant Bibles began to follow the
Jewish canon and exclude the additional texts, which came to be
called Biblical apocrypha. The Apocrypha are included under a
separate heading in the King James Version of the Bible, the basis
for the Revised Standard Version.
The Septuagint derives its name
from the Latin versio septuaginta interpretum, "translation of
the seventy interpreters", Greek: he- metáphrasis to-n
hebdome-'konta, "translation of the seventy". However, it
was not until the time of Augustine of Hippo (354–430 CE) that
the Greek translation of the Jewish scriptures came to be called by
the Latin term Septuaginta. The Roman numeral LXX (seventy) is
commonly used as an abbreviation, as are \mathfrak{G} or G. Composition of The Septuagint Legend These titles refer to a legendary story, according to which seventy or seventy-two Jewish scholars were asked by the Greek King of Egypt Ptolemy II Philadelphus to translate the Torah from Biblical Hebrew into Greek, for inclusion in the Library of Alexandria. This legend is first found in the pseudepigraphic Letter of Aristeas to his brother Philocrates, and is repeated, with embellishments, by Philo of Alexandria, Josephus and by various later sources, including St. Augustine. A version of the legend is found in the Tractate Megillah of the Babylonian Talmud: King Ptolemy once gathered 72 Elders. He placed them in 72 chambers, each of them in a separate one, without revealing to them why they were summoned. He entered each one's room and said: "Write for me the Torah of Moshe, your teacher". God put it in the heart of each one to translate identically as all the others did.
Philo of Alexandria, who relied
extensively on the Septuagint, says that the number of scholars was
chosen by selecting six scholars from each of the twelve tribes of Israel. History of The Septuagint The date of the 3rd century BCE, given in the legend, is supported (for the Torah translation) by a number of factors, including the Greek being representative of early Koine, citations beginning as early as the 2nd century BCE, and early manuscripts datable to the 2nd century. After the Torah, other books were translated over the next two to three centuries. It is not altogether clear which was translated when, or where; some may even have been translated twice, into different versions, and then revised. The quality and style of the different translators also varied considerably from book to book, from the literal to paraphrasing to interpretative.
The translation process of the
Septuagint itself and from the Septuagint into other versions can be
broken down into several distinct stages, during which the social
milieu of the translators shifted from Hellenistic Judaism to Early
Christianity. The translation of the Septuagint itself began in the
3rd century BCE and was completed by 132 BCE, initially in
Alexandria, but in time elsewhere as well. The Septuagint is the
basis for the Old Latin, Slavonic, Syriac, Old Armenian, Old Georgian
and Coptic versions of the Christian Old Testament. Language of The Septuagint Some sections of the Septuagint may show Semiticisms, or idioms and phrases based on Semitic languages like Hebrew and Aramaic. Other books, such as Daniel and Proverbs, show Greek influence more strongly. Jewish Koine Greek exists primarily as a category of literature, or cultural category, but apart from some distinctive religious vocabulary is not so distinct from other varieties of Koine Greek as to be counted a separate dialect.
The Septuagint may also elucidate
pronunciation of pre-Masoretic Hebrew: many proper nouns are spelled
out with Greek vowels in the LXX, while contemporary Hebrew texts
lacked vowel pointing. However, it is extremely unlikely that all
ancient Hebrew sounds had precise Greek equivalents. Disputes Over Canonicity of The Septuagint As the work of translation progressed, the canon of the Greek Bible expanded. The Torah (Pentateuch in Greek) always maintained its pre-eminence as the basis of the canon, but the collection of prophetic writings, based on the Jewish Nevi'im, had various hagiographical works incorporated into it. In addition some newer books were included in the Septuagint: those called anagignoskomena in Greek, because they are not included in the Jewish canon. Among these are the Maccabees and the Wisdom of Ben Sira. Also, the Septuagint version of some Biblical books, like Daniel and Esther, are longer than those in the Masoretic Text. Some of these "apocryphal" books (e.g. the Wisdom of Solomon, and the second book of Maccabees) were not translated, but composed directly in Greek. It is not known when the Ketuvim ("writings"), the final part of the three part Canon was established, although some sort of selective processes must have been employed because the Septuagint did not include other well-known Jewish documents such as Enoch or Jubilees or other writings that are not part of the Jewish canon. (These are now classified as Pseudepigrapha.) Since Late Antiquity, once attributed to a Council of Jamnia, mainstream rabbinic Judaism rejected the Septuagint as valid Jewish scriptural texts. Several reasons have been given for this. First, some mistranslations were claimed. Second, the Hebrew source texts, in some cases (particularly the Book of Daniel), used for the Septuagint differed from the Masoretic tradition of Hebrew texts, which was chosen as canonical by the Jewish rabbis. Third, the rabbis wanted to distinguish their tradition from the newly emerging tradition of Christianity. Finally, the rabbis claimed for the Hebrew language a divine authority, in contrast to Aramaic or Greek—even though these languages were the lingua franca of Jews during this period (Aramaic was eventually given the same holy language status as Hebrew).
In time the LXX became synonymous
with the "Greek Old Testament", i.e. a Christian canon of
writings which incorporated all the books of the Hebrew canon, along
with additional texts. The Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox
Churches include most of the books that are in the Septuagint in
their canons; however, Protestant churches usually do not. After the
Protestant Reformation, many Protestant Bibles began to follow the
Jewish canon and exclude the additional texts, which came to be
called "Apocrypha" (originally meaning "hidden"
but became synonymous with "of questionable authenticity").
The Apocrypha are included under a separate heading in the King James
Version of the Bible, the basis for the Revised Standard Version. Final Form of The Septuagint Some texts are found in the Septuagint but are not present in the Hebrew. These additional books are Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Jesus son of Sirach, Baruch, the Letter of Jeremiah (which later became chapter 6 of Baruch in the Vulgate), additions to Daniel (The Prayer of Azarias, the Song of the Three Children, Susanna and Bel and the Dragon), additions to Esther, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, 3 Maccabees, 4 Maccabees, 1 Esdras, Odes, including the Prayer of Manasseh, the Psalms of Solomon, and Psalm 151. All the books of western canons of the Old Testament are found in the Septuagint, although the order does not always coincide with the Western ordering of the books. The Septuagint order for the Old Testament is evident in the earliest Christian Bibles (4th century). Some books that are set apart in the Masoretic text are grouped together. For example the Books of Samuel and the Books of Kings are in the LXX one book in four parts called "Of Reigns". In LXX, the Books of Chronicles supplement Reigns and it is called Paraleipoménon (things left out). The Septuagint organizes the minor prophets as twelve parts of one Book of Twelve. Some scripture of ancient origin are found in the Septuagint but are not present in the Hebrew. These additional books are Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Jesus son of Sirach, Baruch, Letter of Jeremiah (which later became chapter 6 of Baruch in the Vulgate), additions to Daniel (The Prayer of Azarias, the Song of the Three Children, Susanna and Bel and the Dragon), additions to Esther, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, 3 Maccabees, 4 Maccabees, 1 Esdras, Odes, including the Prayer of Manasseh, the Psalms of Solomon, and Psalm 151.
The canonical acceptance of these
books varies among different Christian traditions, and there are
canonical books not derived from the Septuagint. For more information
regarding these books, see the articles Biblical apocrypha, Biblical
canon, Books of the Bible, and Deuterocanonical books.
Incorporations from Theodotion In most ancient copies of the Bible which contain the Septuagint version of the Old Testament, the Book of Daniel is not the original Septuagint version, but instead is a copy of Theodotion's translation from the Hebrew, which more closely resembles the Masoretic Text. The Septuagint version was discarded in favour of Theodotion's version in the 2nd to 3rd centuries CE. In Greek-speaking areas, this happened near the end of the 2nd century, and in Latin-speaking areas (at least in North Africa), it occurred in the middle of the 3rd century. History does not record the reason for this, and St. Jerome reports, in the preface to the Vulgate version of Daniel, "This thing 'just' happened." One of two Old Greek texts of the Book of Daniel has been recently rediscovered and work is ongoing in reconstructing the original form of the book.
The canonical Ezra–Nehemiah
is known in the Septuagint as "Esdras B", and 1 Esdras is
"Esdras A". 1 Esdras is a very similar text to the books of
Ezra–Nehemiah, and the two are widely thought by scholars to be
derived from the same original text. It has been proposed, and is
thought highly likely by scholars, that "Esdras B" –
the canonical Ezra–Nehemiah – is Theodotion's version of
this material, and "Esdras A" is the version which was
previously in the Septuagint on its own. Pre-Christian Jews, Philo and Josephus considered the Septuagint on equal standing with the Hebrew text. Manuscripts of the Septuagint have been found among the Qumran Scrolls in the Dead Sea, and were thought to have been in use among Jews at the time. Starting approximately in the 2nd century CE, several factors led most Jews to abandon use of the LXX. The earliest gentile Christians of necessity used the LXX, as it was at the time the only Greek version of the Bible, and most, if not all, of these early non-Jewish Christians could not read Hebrew. The association of the LXX with a rival religion may have rendered it suspect in the eyes of the newer generation of Jews and Jewish scholars. Instead, Jews used Hebrew/Aramaic Targum manuscripts later compiled by the Masoretes; and authoritative Aramaic translations, such as those of Onkelos and Rabbi Yonathan ben Uziel. What was perhaps most significant for the LXX, as distinct from other Greek versions, was that the LXX began to lose Jewish sanction after differences between it and contemporary Hebrew scriptures were discovered (see below). Even Greek-speaking Jews tended less to the LXX, preferring other Jewish versions in Greek, such as that of the 2nd-century Aquila translation, which seemed to be more concordant with contemporary Hebrew texts. While Jews have not used the LXX in worship or religious study since the 2nd century CE, recent scholarship has brought renewed interest in it in the field of Judaic Studies. Christian use of The Septuagint The Early Christian Church used the Greek texts since Greek was a lingua franca of the Roman Empire at the time, and the language of the Greco-Roman Church (Aramaic was the language of Syriac Christianity, which used the Targumim). The relationship between the apostolic use of the Old Testament, for example, the Septuagint and the now lost Hebrew texts (though to some degree and in some form carried on in Masoretic tradition) is complicated. The Septuagint seems to have been a major source for the Apostles, but it is not the only one. St. Jerome offered, for example, Matt 2:15 and 2:23, John 19:37, John 7:38, 1 Cor. 2:9. as examples not found in the Septuagint, but in Hebrew texts. (Matt 2:23 is not present in current Masoretic tradition either, though according to St. Jerome it was in Isaiah 11:1.) The New Testament writers, when citing the Jewish scriptures, or when quoting Jesus doing so, freely used the Greek translation, implying that Jesus, his Apostles and their followers considered it reliable. In the Early Christian Church, the presumption that the Septuagint was translated by Jews before the era of Christ, and that the Septuagint at certain places gives itself more to a christological interpretation than 2nd-century Hebrew texts was taken as evidence that "Jews" had changed the Hebrew text in a way that made them less christological. For example, Irenaeus concerning Isaiah 7:14: The Septuagint clearly writes of a virgin that shall conceive. While the Hebrew text was, according to Irenaeus, at that time interpreted by Theodotion and Aquila (both proselytes of the Jewish faith) as a young woman that shall conceive. According to Irenaeus, the Ebionites used this to claim that Joseph was the (biological) father of Jesus. From Irenaeus' point of view that was pure heresy, facilitated by (late) anti-Christian alterations of the scripture in Hebrew, as evident by the older, pre-Christian, Septuagint. When Jerome undertook the revision of the Old Latin translations of the Septuagint, he checked the Septuagint against the Hebrew texts that were then available. He broke with church tradition and translated most of the Old Testament of his Vulgate from Hebrew rather than Greek. His choice was severely criticized by Augustine, his contemporary; a flood of still less moderate criticism came from those who regarded Jerome as a forger. While on the one hand he argued for the superiority of the Hebrew texts in correcting the Septuagint on both philological and theological grounds, on the other, in the context of accusations of heresy against him, Jerome would acknowledge the Septuagint texts as well. With the passage of time, acceptance of Jerome's version gradually increased until it displaced the Old Latin translations of the Septuagint. The Eastern Orthodox Church still prefers to use the LXX as the basis for translating the Old Testament into other languages. The Eastern Orthodox also use LXX untranslated where Greek is the liturgical language, e.g. in the Orthodox Church of Constantinople, the Church of Greece and the Cypriot Orthodox Church. Critical translations of the Old Testament, while using the Masoretic Text as their basis, consult the Septuagint as well as other versions in an attempt to reconstruct the meaning of the Hebrew text whenever the latter is unclear, undeniably corrupt, or ambiguous. For example, the Jerusalem Bible Foreword says, "... only when this (the Masoretic Text) presents insuperable difficulties have emendations or other versions, such as the ... LXX, been used." The Translator's Preface to the New International Version says: "The translators also consulted the more important early versions (including) the Septuagint ... Readings from these versions were occasionally followed where the MT seemed doubtful ..." Table of books of The Septuagint
Textual Analysis of The Septuagint The inter-relationship between various significant ancient manuscripts of the Old Testament (some identified by their siglum). LXX here denotes the original septuagint. Modern scholarship holds that the LXX was written during the 3rd through 1st centuries BCE. But nearly all attempts at dating specific books, with the exception of the Pentateuch (early- to mid-3rd century BCE), are tentative and without consensus. Later Jewish revisions and recensions of the Greek against the Hebrew are well attested, the most famous of which include the Three: Aquila (128 CE), Symmachus, and Theodotion. These three, to varying degrees, are more literal renderings of their contemporary Hebrew scriptures as compared to the Old Greek. Modern scholars consider one or more of the 'three' to be totally new Greek versions of the Hebrew Bible.
Around 235 CE, Origen, a Christian
scholar in Alexandria, completed the Hexapla, a comprehensive
comparison of the ancient versions and Hebrew text side-by-side in
six columns, with diacritical markings (a.k.a. "editor's
marks", "critical signs" or "Aristarchian
signs"). Much of this work was lost, but several compilations of
the fragments are available. In the first column was the contemporary
Hebrew, in the second a Greek transliteration of it, then the newer
Greek versions each in their own columns. Origen also kept a column
for the Old Greek (the Septuagint) and next to it was a critical
apparatus combining readings from all the Greek versions with
diacritical marks indicating to which version each line (Gr.)
belonged. Perhaps the voluminous Hexapla was never copied in its
entirety, but Origen's combined text ("the fifth column")
was copied frequently, eventually without the editing marks, and the
older uncombined text of the LXX was neglected. Thus this combined
text became the first major Christian recension of the LXX, often
called the Hexaplar recension. In the century following Origen, two
other major recensions were identified by Jerome, who attributed
these to Lucian and Hesychius. Manuscripts of The Septuagint
The oldest manuscripts of the LXX
include 2nd century BCE fragments of Leviticus and Deuteronomy
(Rahlfs nos. 801, 819, and 957), and 1st century BCE fragments of
Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, and the Minor
Prophets (Alfred Rahlfs nos. 802, 803, 805, 848, 942, and 943).
Relatively complete manuscripts of the LXX postdate the Hexaplar
rescension and include the Codex Vaticanus from the 4th century CE
and the Codex Alexandrinus of the 5th century. These are indeed the
oldest surviving nearly complete manuscripts of the Old Testament in
any language; the oldest extant complete Hebrew texts date some 600
years later, from the first half of the 10th century. The 4th century
Codex Sinaiticus also partially survives, still containing many texts
of the Old Testament. While there are differences between these three
codices, scholarly consensus today holds that one LXX—that is,
the original pre-Christian translation—underlies all three. The
various Jewish and later Christian revisions and recensions are
largely responsible for the divergence of the codices. Differences with the Latin Vulgate and the Masoretic text of The Septuagint The sources of the many differences between the Septuagint, the Latin Vulgate and the Masoretic text have long been discussed by scholars. Following the Renaissance, a common opinion among some humanists was that the LXX translators bungled the translation from the Hebrew and that the LXX became more corrupt with time. The most widely accepted view today is that the original Septuagint provided a reasonably accurate record of an early Hebrew textual variant that differed from the ancestor of the Masoretic text as well as those of the Latin Vulgate, where both of the latter seem to have a more similar textual heritage. This view is supported by comparisons with Biblical texts found at the Essene settlement at Qumran (the Dead Sea Scrolls). These issues notwithstanding, the text of the LXX is generally close to that of the Masoretes and Vulgate. For example, Genesis 4:1–6 is identical in both the LXX, Vulgate and the Masoretic Text. Likewise, Genesis 4:8 to the end of the chapter is the same. There is only one noticeable difference in that chapter, at 4:7, to wit:
This instance illustrates the
complexity of assessing differences between the LXX and the Masoretic
Text as well as the Vulgate. Despite the striking divergence of
meaning here between the Septuagint and later texts, nearly identical
consonantal Hebrew source texts can be reconstructed. The readily
apparent semantic differences result from alternative strategies for
interpreting the difficult verse and relate to differences in
vowelization and punctuation of the consonantal text.
Dead Sea Scrolls and The Septuagint The Biblical manuscripts found in Qumran, commonly known as the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS), have prompted comparisons of the various texts associated with the Hebrew Bible, including the Septuagint. Peter Flint, cites Emanuel Tov, the chief editor of the scrolls, who identifies five broad variation categories of DSS texts:
The textual sources present a variety of readings. For example, Bastiaan Van Elderen compares three variations of Deuteronomy 32:43, the Song of Moses.
The Dead Sea Scrolls, with their
5% connection to the Septuagint, provide significant information for
scholars studying the Greek text of the Hebrew Bible. Printed Editions of The Septuagint The texts of all printed editions are derived from the three recensions mentioned above, that of Origen, Lucian, or Hesychius.
English Translations of The Septuagint The Septuagint has been translated surprisingly few times into English. The first one, which excluded the Apocrypha, was Charles Thomson's in 1808, which was subsequently revised and enlarged by C.A. Muses in 1954. The translation of Sir Lancelot C. L. Brenton, published in 1851, is a long-time standard. For most of the years since its publication it has been the only one readily available, and has continually been in print. It is based primarily upon the Codex Vaticanus and contains the Greek and English texts in parallel columns. There is also a revision of the Brenton Septuagint available through Stauros Ministries, called The Complete Apostles' Bible, translated by Paul W. Esposito, Th.D, and released in 2007. The International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies (IOSCS) has produced A New English Translation of the Septuagint and the Other Greek Translations Traditionally Included Under that Title (NETS), an academic translation based on standard critical editions of the Greek texts. It was published by Oxford University Press in October 2007. The Apostolic Bible Polyglot, published in 2003, includes the Greek books of the Hebrew canon along with the Greek New Testament, all numerically coded to the AB-Strong numbering system, and set in monotonic orthography. Included in the printed edition is a concordance and index. The Orthodox Study Bible was released in early 2008 with a new translation of the Septuagint based on the Alfred Rahlfs edition of the Greek text. To this base they brought two additional major sources: first the Brenton translation of the Septuagint from 1851, and, second, Thomas Nelson Publishers granted use of the New King James Version text in the places where the translation of the LXX would match that of the Hebrew Masoretic text. This edition includes the New Testament as well, which also uses the New King James Version; and it includes, further, extensive commentary from an Eastern Orthodox perspective. The Eastern Orthodox Bible (EOB) is an extensive revision and correction of Brenton’s translation which was primarily based on Codex Vaticanus. Its language and syntax have been modernized and simplified. It also includes extensive introductory material and footnotes featuring significant inter-LXX and LXX/MT variants. Father Nicholas King, SJ, a Jesuit priest who lectures in New Testament Studies at Oxford University, has completed a four volume translation of the Septuagint, begun in 2010 and finished in 2013; and available from Kevin Mayhew Publishers, entitled The Old Testament (volumes 1 through 4). It contains a very useful mini commentary on each book which gives a flavor of what is hoped to be the start of accessible, reasonably priced individual commentaries for the general reader. The most comprehensive English edition is quite possibly that of Gary F. Zeolla, entitled Analytical Literal Translation of The Old Testament (Septuagint) (ALT). Four volumes have already been published, and the fifth and final volume on the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical books is expected from LuLu Publishers in 2015. It is a word-for-word literal translation, rather than a dynamic equivalence, or sectarian translation. Like the NETS it has every 'Septuagintal' Book, rather than slavishly following the Hebrew canon as a template, which makes for completeness. An advantage for the beginner in using Zeolla's edition is that it can be compared with the original Greek, or any English translation of the Hebrew OT, to see the variations between the versions. Promotion of The Septuagint
The International Organization for
Septuagint and Cognate Studies (IOSCS), a nonprofit, learned society
formed to promote international research in and study of the
Septuagint and related texts, has established February 8 annually as
International Septuagint Day, a day to promote the discipline on
campuses and in communities. The Organization is also publishing the
"Journal of Septuagint and Cognate Studies" (JSCS). Christian Bibles A Christian Bible is a set of books that a Christian denomination regards as divinely inspired and thus constituting scripture. Although the Early Church primarily used the Septuagint or the Targums among Aramaic speakers, the apostles did not leave a defined set of new scriptures; instead the canon of the New Testament developed over time. Groups within Christianity include differing books as part of their sacred writings, most prominent among which are the biblical apocrypha or deuterocanonical books. Significant versions of the English Christian Bible include the Douay-Rheims Bible, the Authorized King James Version, the English Revised Version, the American Standard Version, the Revised Standard Version, the New American Standard Version, the New King James Version, the New International Version, and the English Standard Version.
See also Christian
Biblical Canons and List of English Bible Translations Old Testament of The Christian Bibles The books which make up the Christian Old Testament differ between the Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant churches, with the Protestant movement accepting only those books contained in the Hebrew Bible, while Catholics and Orthodox have wider canons. A few groups consider particular translations to be divinely inspired, notably the Greek Septuagint, the Aramaic Peshitta, and the English King James Version. Apocryphal or Deuterocanonical Books of The Christian Bibles In Eastern Christianity, translations based on the Septuagint still prevail. The Septuagint was generally abandoned in favour of the 10th-century Masoretic Text as the basis for translations of the Old Testament into Western languages. Some modern Western translations since the 14th century make use of the Septuagint to clarify passages in the Masoretic Text, where the Septuagint may preserve a variant reading of the Hebrew text. They also sometimes adopt variants that appear in other texts, e.g., those discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls. A number of books which are part of the Peshitta or Greek Septuagint but are not found in the Hebrew (Rabbinic) Bible (i.e., among the protocanonical books) are often referred to as deuterocanonical books by Roman Catholics referring to a later secondary (i.e., deutero) canon, that canon as fixed definitively by the Council of Trent 1545–1563. It includes 46 books for the Old Testament (45 if Jeremiah and Lamentations are counted as one) and 27 for the New.
Most Protestants term these books
as apocrypha. Modern Protestant traditions do not accept the
deuterocanonical books as canonical, although Protestant Bibles
included them in Apocrypha sections until the 1820s. However, Roman
Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches include these books as part of
their Old Testament. The Roman Catholic Church Recognizes:
In addition to those, the Greek and Russian Orthodox Churches recognize the following:
Russian and Georgian Orthodox Churches include:
There is also 4 Maccabees which is only accepted as canonical in the Georgian Church, but was included by St. Jerome in an appendix to the Vulgate, and is an appendix to the Greek Orthodox Bible, and it is therefore sometimes included in collections of the Apocrypha. The Syriac Orthodox tradition includes:
The Ethiopian Biblical canon includes:
and some other books.
The Anglican Church uses some of
the Apocryphal books liturgically. Therefore, editions of the Bible
intended for use in the Anglican Church include the Deuterocanonical
books accepted by the Catholic Church, plus 1 Esdras, 2 Esdras and
the Prayer of Manasseh, which were in the Vulgate appendix. Pseudepigraphal Texts The term Pseudepigrapha commonly describes numerous works of Jewish religious literature written from about 300 BCE to 300 CE. Not all of these works are actually pseudepigraphical. It also refers to books of the New Testament canon whose authorship is misrepresented. The "Old Testament" Pseudepigraphal works include the following:
Book of Enoch Notable pseudepigraphal works include the Books of Enoch (such as 1 Enoch, 2 Enoch, surviving only in Old Slavonic, and 3 Enoch, surviving in Hebrew, c. 5th to 6th century CE). These are ancient Jewish religious works, traditionally ascribed to the prophet Enoch, the great-grandfather of the patriarch Noah. They are not part of the biblical canon used by Jews, apart from Beta Israel. Most Christian denominations and traditions may accept the Books of Enoch as having some historical or theological interest or significance. It has been observed that part of the Book of Enoch is quoted in the Epistle of Jude (part of the New Testament) but Christian denominations generally regard the Books of Enoch as non-canonical or non-inspired. However, the Enoch books are treated as canonical by the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church and Eritrean Orthodox Tewahedo Church.
The older sections (mainly in the
Book of the Watchers) are estimated to date from about 300 BC, and
the latest part (Book of Parables) probably was composed at the end
of the 1st century BC. Denominational Views of Pseudepigrapha
There arose in some Protestant
biblical scholarship an extended use of the term pseudepigrapha for
works that appeared as though they ought to be part of the biblical
canon, because of the authorship ascribed to them, but which
stood outside both the biblical canons recognized by Protestants and
Catholics. These works were also outside the particular set of books
that Roman Catholics called deuterocanonical and to which Protestants
had generally applied the term Apocryphal. Accordingly, the term
pseudepigraphical, as now used often among both Protestants and Roman
Catholics (allegedly for the clarity it brings to the discussion),
may make it difficult to discuss questions of pseudepigraphical
authorship of canonical books dispassionately with a lay audience. To
confuse the matter even more, Eastern Orthodox Christians accept
books as canonical that Roman Catholics and most Protestant
denominations consider pseudepigraphical or at best of much less
authority. There exist also churches that reject some of the books
that Roman Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants accept. The same is
true of some Jewish sects. Many works that are "apocryphal"
are otherwise considered genuine. Role of Old Testament in Christian Theology The Old Testament has always been central to the life of the Christian church. Bible scholar N.T. Wright says "Jesus himself was profoundly shaped by the scriptures." He adds that the earliest Christians also searched those same Hebrew scriptures in their effort to understand the earthly life of Jesus. They regarded the Israelites' "holy writings" as instructive for the Christian, and as pointing to the Messiah, and as having reached a climactic fulfillment in Jesus himself, generating the "new covenant" prophesied by Jeremiah. For More Detailed Information, See Sola scriptura and Christian theology The New Testament is a collection of 27 books of 4 different genres of Christian literature (Gospels, one account of the Acts of the Apostles, Epistles and an Apocalypse). Jesus is its central figure. The New Testament presupposes the inspiration of the Old Testament. (2 Timothy 3:16) Nearly all Christians recognize the New Testament as canonical scripture. These books can be grouped into: The Gospels
Narrative literature, account and history of the Apostolic age
Pauline Epistles
Pastoral epistles
General epistles, also called catholic epistles
Apocalyptic literature, also called Prophetical
The New Testament books are ordered differently in the Catholic/Orthodox/Protestant tradition, the Slavonic tradition, the Syriac tradition and the Ethiopian tradition.
See
also Development of the New Testament Canon See also: Language of the New Testament The mainstream consensus is that the New Testament was written in a form of Koine Greek, which was the common language of the Eastern Mediterranean from the Conquests of Alexander the Great (335–323 BC) until the evolution of Byzantine Greek (c. 600). The Hellenistic Jewish World The New Testament Gospels and Epistles were only part of a Hellenistic Jewish culture in the Roman Empire, where Alexandria had a larger Jewish population than Jerusalem, and Greek was spoken by more Jews than Hebrew. Other Jewish Hellenistic writings include those of Josephus, Philo, Demetrius the chronographer, Eupolemus, Pseudo-Eupolemus, Artapanus of Alexandria, Cleodemus Malchus, Aristeas, Pseudo-Hecataeus, Thallus, and Justus of Tiberias, Pseudo-Philo, many Old Testament Pseudepigrapha and the Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Bible itself. Background on Koine Greek Whereas the Classical Greek city states used different dialects of Greek, a common standard, called Koine (????? "common"), developed gradually in the 4th and 3rd centuries BC as a consequence of the formation of larger political structures (like the Greek colonies, Athenian Empire, and the Macedonian Empire) and a more intense cultural exchange in the Aegean area, or in other words the Hellenization of the empire of Alexander the Great. In the Greek Dark Ages and the Archaic Period, Greek colonies were founded all over the Mediterranean basin. However, even though Greek goods were popular in the East, the cultural influence tended to work the other way around. Yet, with the conquests of Alexander the Great (333-323 BC) and the subsequent establishment of Hellenistic kingdoms (above all, the Seleucid Empire and Ptolemaic Kingdom), Koine Greek became the dominant language in politics, culture and commerce in the Near East. During the following centuries, Rome conquered Greece and the Macedonian Kingdoms piece for piece until, with the conquest of Egypt in 30 BC, she held all land around the Mediterranean. However, as Horace gently puts it: "Conquered Greece has conquered the brute victor and brought her arts into rustic Latium" (Graecia capta ferum victorem cepit et artis intulit agresti Latio.) Roman art and literature were calqued upon Hellenistic models. Koine Greek remained the dominant language in the eastern part of the Roman Empire, extending into the Byzantine Empire as Byzantine Greek. In the city of Rome, Koine Greek was in widespread use among ordinary people, and the elite spoke and wrote Greek as fluently as Latin. Jewish Koine Greek did not exist as a separate dialect, but some Jewish texts in Koine Greek do show the influence of Aramaic in syntax and the influence of Biblical background in vocabulary. See also Koine Greek Languages used in ancient Palestine After the Babylonian captivity, Aramaic replaced Biblical Hebrew as the everyday language in Palestine. The two languages were as similar as two Romance languages or two Germanic languages today. Thus Biblical Hebrew, which was still used for religious purposes, was not totally unfamiliar, but still a somewhat strange norm that demanded a certain degree of training to be understood properly. After Alexander, Palestine was ruled by the Ptolemies and the Seleucids for almost two hundred years. Jewish culture was heavily influenced by Hellenistic culture, and Koine Greek was used not only for international communication, but also as the first language of many Jews. This development was furthered by the fact that the largest Jewish community of the world lived in Ptolemaic Alexandria. Many of these diaspora Jews would have Greek as their first language, and first the Torah and then other Jewish scriptures (later the Christian "Old Testament") were therefore translated into standard Koine Greek, i.e. the Septuagint.
Currently, 1,600 Jewish epitaphs
(funerary inscriptions) are extant from ancient Palestine dating from
300 B.C. to 500 A.D. Approximately 70 percent are in Greek, about 12
percent are in Latin, and only 18 percent are in Hebrew or Aramaic.
"In Jerusalem itself about 40 percent of the Jewish inscriptions
from the first century period (before 70 C.E.) are in Greek. We may
assume that most Jewish Jerusalemites who saw the inscriptions in
situ were able to read them". The language of the New Testament Most biblical scholars adhere to the view that the Greek text of the New Testament is the original version. An opposite view, that it is a translation from an Aramaic original (recently called "Aramaic primacy") has not gained popularity. At any rate, since most of the texts are written by diaspora Jews such as Paul of Tarsus and his possibly Gentile companion, Luke, and to a large extent addressed directly to Christian communities in Greek-speaking cities (often communities consisting largely of Paul's converts, which appear to have been non-Jewish in the majority), and since the style of their Greek is impeccable, a Greek original is more probable than a translation. Even Mark, whose Greek is heavily influenced by his Semitic substratum, seems to presuppose a non-Hebrew audience. Thus, he explains Jewish customs (e.g. Mark 7:3-4, see also Mark 7), and he translates Aramaic phrases into Greek (Mark 3:17: boanerges; Mark 5:41: talitha kum; Mark 7:34: ephphatha; Mark 14:36: abba; Mark 15:22: Golgotha; Mark 15:34, see also Aramaic of Jesus and Sayings of Jesus on the cross). In the Aramaic Syriac version of the Bible, these translations are preserved, resulting in odd texts like Mark 15:34:
"And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" In the Peshitta:
Languages of Jesus It is generally agreed that Jesus and his disciples primarily spoke Aramaic, the common language of Judea in the first century AD, most likely a Galilean dialect distinguishable from that of Jerusalem. The towns of Nazareth and Capernaum in Galilee, where Jesus spent most of his time, were Aramaic-speaking communities. As the languages spoken in Galilee and Judea during the first century include the Semitic Aramaic and Hebrew languages as well as Greek, with Aramaic being the predominant language. Most scholars agree that during the early part of first century Aramaic was the mother tongue of virtually all natives of Galilee and Judea. Most scholars support the theory that Jesus spoke Aramaic and that he may have also spoken Hebrew and Greek. Stanley E. Porter concluded: "The linguistic environment of Roman Palestine during the first century was much more complex, and allows for the possibility that Jesus himself may well have spoken Greek on occasion." Other Views Critics of the mainstream consensus in favour of Greek being the original language of the New Testament claim logical improbabilities in the Greek Text compared to the Syriac/Hebrew Texts and vocabulary containing wordplay in the Syriac/Hebrew New Testament texts that parallels Hebraic wordplay in the Old Testament. Historic Editions The original autographs, that is, the original Greek writings and manuscripts written by the original authors of the New Testament, have not survived. But historically copies exist of those original autographs, transmitted and preserved in a number of manuscript traditions. When ancient scribes copied earlier books, they sometimes wrote notes on the margins of the page (marginal glosses) to correct their text—especially if a scribe accidentally omitted a word or line—and to comment about the text. When later scribes were copying the copy, they were sometimes uncertain if a note was intended to be included as part of the text. Over time, different regions evolved different versions, each with its own assemblage of omissions and additions. The three main textual traditions of the Greek New Testament are sometimes called the Alexandrian text-type (generally minimalist), the Byzantine text-type (generally maximalist), and the Western text-type (occasionally wild). Together they comprise most of the ancient manuscripts.
See also Textual
criticism Development of the Christian Canons The Old Testament canon entered into Christian use in the Greek Septuagint translations and original books, and their differing lists of texts. In addition to the Septuagint, Christianity subsequently added various writings that would become the New Testament. Somewhat different lists of accepted works continued to develop in antiquity. In the 4th century a series of synods produced a list of texts equal to the 39, 46(51),54, or 57 book canon of the Old Testament and to the 27-book canon of the New Testament that would be subsequently used to today, most notably the Synod of Hippo in AD 393. Also c. 400, Jerome produced a definitive Latin edition of the Bible (see Vulgate), the canon of which, at the insistence of the Pope, was in accord with the earlier Synods. With the benefit of hindsight it can be said that this process effectively set the New Testament canon, although there are examples of other canonical lists in use after this time. A definitive list did not come from an Ecumenical Council until the Council of Trent (1545–63). The Protestant Old Testament of today has a 39-book canon—the number of books (though not the content) varies from the Jewish Tanakh only because of a different method of division—while the Roman Catholic Church recognizes 46 books (51 books with some books combined into 46 books) as the canonical Old Testament. The Eastern Orthodox Churches recognise 3 Maccabees, 1 Esdras, Prayer of Manasseh and Psalm 151 in addition to the Catholic canon. Some include 2 Esdras. The Anglican Church also recognises a longer canon. The term "Hebrew Scriptures" is often used as being synonymous with the Protestant Old Testament, since the surviving scriptures in Hebrew include only those books, while Catholics and Orthodox include additional texts that have not survived in Hebrew. Both Catholics and Protestants (as well as Greek Orthodox) have the same 27-book New Testament Canon. The New Testament writers assumed the inspiration of the Old Testament, probably earliest stated in 2 Timothy 3:16, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God".
See also Development
of the Old Testament Canon and Development
of the New Testament Canon Ethiopian Orthodox Canon The Canon of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church is wider than the canons used by most other Christian churches. There are 81 books in the Ethiopian Orthodox Bible. The Ethiopian Old Testament Canon includes the books found in the Septuagint accepted by other Orthodox Christians, in addition to Enoch and Jubilees which are ancient Jewish books that only survived in Ge'ez but are quoted in the New Testament, also Greek Ezra First and the Apocalypse of Ezra, 3 books of Meqabyan, and Psalm 151 at the end of the Psalter. The three books of Meqabyan are not to be confused with the books of Maccabees. The order of the other books is somewhat different from other groups', as well. The Old Testament follows the Septuagint order for the Minor Prophets rather than the Jewish order. The Orthodox Tewahedo churches currently have the largest and most diverse biblical canon within traditional Christendom. Western scholars have classified the books of the Orthodox Tewahedo biblical canon into two categories — the narrower canon, which consists mostly of books familiar to the west, and the broader canon. While the main purpose of this article is to discuss and highlight the books that are exclusive to the broader canon, it is impossible to do this without at least some discussion of the narrower canon. The Orthodox Tewahedo broader canon in its fullest form includes the narrower canon in its entirety, as well as nine additional books. It is not known to exist at this time as one published compilation. Some books, though considered canonical, are nonetheless difficult to locate and are not even widely available in the churches' home countries of Ethiopia and Eritrea. While the narrower canon has indeed been published as one compilation, there may be no real emic distinction between the broader canon and the narrower canon, especially in so far as divine inspiration and scriptural authority are concerned — and more especially among clerics who may have a greater access to all of the writings. The idea of two such classifications may be nothing more than etic taxonomic conjecture.
Narrower Biblical Canon
Old Testament The Orthodox Tewahedo narrower Old Testament canon contains the entire Hebrew protocanon. Moreover, with the exception of the first two books of Maccabees, the Orthodox Tewahedo canon also contains the entire Catholic deuterocanon. In addition to this, the Orthodox Tewahedo Old Testament includes the Prayer of Manasseh, 3 Ezra, and 4 Ezra, which also appear in the canons of other Christian traditions. Unique to the Orthodox Tewahedo canon are the Paralipomena of Jeremiah (4 Baruch), Jubilees, Enoch, and the three books of Meqabyan. The books of Lamentations, Jeremiah, and Baruch, as well as the Letter of Jeremiah and 4 Baruch, are all considered canonical by the Orthodox Tewahedo churches. However, it is not always clear as to how these writings are arranged or divided. In some lists, they may simply fall under the title "Jeremiah," while in others, they are divided various ways into separate books. Moreover, the book of Proverbs is divided into two books — Messale (Prov. 1–24) and Tägsas (Prov. 25–31). Additionally, while the books of Jubilees and Enoch are fairly well-known among western scholars, 1, 2, and 3 Meqabyan are not. The three books of Meqabyan are often called the "Ethiopian Maccabees," but are completely different from the books of Maccabees that are known and/or have been canonized in other traditions. Finally, within the Orthodox Tewahedo tradition, 3 Ezra is called Second Ezra, 4 Ezra is called Ezra Sutu'el, and the Prayer of Manasseh is incorporated into the Second Book of Chronicles.
New Testament The Orthodox Tewahedo narrower New Testament canon consists of the entire 27 book Christian protocanon, which is almost universally accepted across Christendom.
Broader Biblical Canon In addition to the nine books discussed below, all of the aforementioned books of the narrower canon are also by definition part of the broader canon.
Old Testament The Orthodox Tewahedo broader Old Testament only has one additional book — the Ethiopic version of the Book of Joseph ben Gurion. I, II and III Meqabyan, sometimes referred to as Macabees, are not the same Maccabees recorded in many northern Old Testaments.
Ethiopic Pseudo-Josephus The Book of Joseph ben Gurion, or Pseudo-Josephus, is a history of the Jewish people thought to be based upon the writings of Josephus. The canonical Ethiopic version (1–8 Yosëf wäldä Koryon) has eight parts.
New Testament The Orthodox Tewahedo broader New Testament canon has eight additional books. These are the four books of Sinodos, the two divisions of the Book of the Covenant, Ethiopic Clement, and the Ethiopic Didascalia. Most of the literature herein would either be considered part of the writings of the Apostolic Fathers or part of the Ancient Church Orders.
Sinodos The Ethiopic canonical Sinodos are four books of church order traditionally attributed to the Apostles. They are as follows: Ser`atä Seyon (30 canons), Te'ezaz (71 canons), Gessew (56 canons), and Abtelis (81 canons). Much of the material contained within these books, with the exception of Ser`atä Seyon, is traditionally considered to be of Clementine origin. Other non-canonical parts of the Sinodos are included with these four books within the Ethiopic MSS.
The Book of the Covenant The Book of the Covenant, or Mäshafä Kidan, is counted in two parts. Part one has sixty sections and is mostly about church order. Part two is the sixty-first section, and is a discourse of Jesus Christ to his disciples in Galilee following his resurrection.
Ethiopic Clement
Ethiopic Didascalia The Ethiopic Didascalia, or Didesqelya, is a book of Church order in 43 chapters, distinct from the Didascalia Apostolorum, but similar to books I–VII of the Apostolic Constitutions, where it most likely finds its origins. List of books in The Canon of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Bible
Old Testament
New
Testament
Divine Inspiration
The Second Epistle to Timothy says that "all scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness". (2 Timothy 3:16) Some Christians believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God, that God, through the Holy Spirit, intervened and influenced the words, message, and collation of the Bible. For many Christians the Bible is also infallible, and is incapable of error in matters of faith and practice, but not necessarily in historic or scientific matters. A related, but distinguishable belief is that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, without error in any aspect, spoken by God and written down in its perfect form by humans. Within these broad beliefs there are many schools of hermeneutics. "Bible scholars claim that discussions about the Bible must be put into its context within church history and then into the context of contemporary culture." Fundamentalist Christians are associated with the doctrine of biblical literalism, where the Bible is not only inerrant, but the meaning of the text is clear to the average reader.
Belief in sacred texts is attested
to in Jewish antiquity, and this belief can also be seen in the
earliest of Christian writings. Various texts of the Bible mention
divine agency in relation to its writings. In their book A General
Introduction to the Bible, Norman Geisler and William Nix wrote:
"The process of inspiration is a mystery of the providence of
God, but the result of this process is a verbal, plenary, inerrant,
and authoritative record." Most evangelical biblical scholars
associate inspiration with only the original text; for example some
American Protestants adhere to the 1978 Chicago Statement on Biblical
Inerrancy which asserted that inspiration applied only to the
autographic text of Scripture. Among adherents of Biblical
literalism, a minority, such as the King-James-Only Movement, extend
the claim of inerrancy only to a particular translation. Biblical Inspiration Biblical inspiration is the doctrine in Christian theology that the authors and editors of the Bible were led or influenced by God with the result that their writings may be designated in some sense the word of God. Basis of Biblical Inspiration The Bible contains many passages in which the authors claim divine inspiration for their message, or report the effects of such inspiration on others. Besides the direct accounts of written revelation, such as Moses receiving the Ten Commandments, the Prophets of the Old Testament frequently claimed that their message was divine by the formula "Thus says the LORD" (for example, 1 Kgs 12:22–24;1 Chr 17:3–4; Jer 35:13; Ezek 2:4; Zech 7:9; etc.). The Second Epistle of Peter claims that "no prophecy of Scripture ... was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit" (2 Pet 1:20–21). An exception common to all the different views of inspiration is that, although the New Testament Scriptures quote, paraphrase, and refer to other works including other New Testament documents, the Septuagint (the Jewish translation of the Torah into Greek, later books were translated anonymously and later included in the Septuagint), including the Apocrypha, and the Greek writers Aratus, Epimenides, Menander, and perhaps Philo, none of the various views of inspiration teach that these referenced works were also necessarily inspired, though some teach that the use and application of these other materials is inspired, in some sense. Second Timothy 3:16-17 is cited by many Christians as evidence that "all scripture is breathed out by God and profitable ..." (English Standard Version – see similar language in the King James Version and the New International Version, among others). Others offer an alternative reading for the passage, for example, theologian C. H. Dodd suggests that it "is probably to be rendered" as, "Every inspired scripture is also useful..." A similar translation has been included in the New English Bible, Revised English Bible, and as a footnoted alternative in the New Revised Standard Version. The Latin Vulgate can be so read. Yet others defend the "traditional" interpretation, calling the alternative "probably not the best translation". Views of Biblical Inspiration A 2011 Gallup survey reports, "A 49% plurality of Americans say the Bible is the inspired word of God but that it should not be taken literally, consistently the most common view in Gallup's nearly 40-year history of this question." Roman Catholic Views of Biblical Inspiration The Roman Catholic Church holds the Bible as inspired by God, but does not view God as the direct author of the Bible, in the sense that He does not put a 'ready-made' book in the mind of the inspired person. As summarized by Karl Keating, the Roman Catholic apologetic for the inspiration of scripture first considers the scriptures as a merely historical source, and then it attempts to derive the divinity of Jesus from the information contained therein, illuminated by the tradition of the Catholic Church and by what they consider to be common knowledge about human nature. After offering evidence that Jesus is indeed God, they argue that his Biblical promise to establish a church that will never perish cannot be empty, and that promise, they believe, implies an infallible teaching authority vested in the church. They conclude that this authoritative Church teaches that the Bible's own doctrine of inspiration is in fact the correct one. Protestant Views of Biblical Inspiration According to Frederic Farrar, Martin Luther did not understand inspiration to mean that scripture was dictated in a purely mechanical manner. Instead, Luther "held that they were not dictated by the Holy Spirit, but that His illumination produced in the minds of their writers the knowledge of salvation, so that divine truth had been expressed in human form, and the knowledge of God had become a personal possession of man. The actual writing was a human not a supernatural act." John Calvin also rejected the verbal dictation theory. Evangelical Views of Biblical Inspiration Evangelicals view the Bible as a genuinely human product, but one whose creation was superintended by the Holy Spirit, preserving the authors' works from error without eliminating their specific concerns, situation, or style. This divine involvement, they say, allowed the biblical writers to communicate without corrupting God's own message both to the immediate recipients of the writings and to those who would come after. Some Evangelicals have labelled the conservative or traditional view as "verbal, plenary inspiration of the original manuscripts", by which they mean that each word (not just the overarching ideas or concepts) was meaningfully chosen under the superintendence of God. Evangelicals acknowledge that there are textual variations between Biblical accounts of apparently identical events and speeches. These are seen as complementary, not contradictory, and are explained as the differing viewpoints of different authors. For instance, the Gospel of Matthew was intended to communicate the Gospel to Jews, the Gospel of Luke to Greeks, and the Gospel of Mark to Romans. Evangelical apologists such as John W. Haley in his book "Alleged Discrepancies in the Bible" and Norman Geisler in "When Critics Ask" have proposed answers to hundreds of claimed contradictions. Some discrepancies are accounted for by changes from the autographa (the original manuscripts) that have been introduced in the copying process, either deliberately or accidentally. Many Evangelicals consider biblical inerrancy and/or biblical infallibility to be the necessary consequence of the Bible's doctrine of inspiration (see, for example, the Westminster Confession of Faith or the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy). Three basic approaches to inspiration are often described when the evangelical approach to scripture is discussed:
According to T.D. Lea and H.P. Griffen, "[n]o respected Evangelicals maintain that God dictated the words of Scripture." Criticism of Biblical Inspiration At times this view has been criticized as tending toward a dictation theory of inspiration, where God speaks and a human records his words. C. H. Dodd wrote: The theory which is commonly described as that of "verbal inspiration" is fairly precise. It maintains that the entire corpus of Scripture consists of writings every word of which (presumably in the original autographs, forever inaccessible to us) was directly "dictated" by the Deity&ldots; They consequently convey absolute truth with no trace of error or relativity&ldots; No attempt will be made here to formulate an alternative definition of inspiration&ldots; That I believe to be a false method. There is indeed no question about the original implications of the term: for primitive religious thought the "inspired" person was under the control of a supernatural influence which inhibited the use of his normal faculties. The Evangelical position has been criticized as being circular by non-Christians and as well as Christians such as Catholic and Orthodox authors, who accept the doctrine but reject the Protestant arguments in favor of it. These critics claim that the Bible can only be used to prove doctrines of biblical inspiration if the doctrine is assumed to begin with. Some defenders of the evangelical doctrine such as B. B. Warfield and Charles Hodge, however, moved away from such circular arguments and "committed themselves to the legitimacy of external verification" to inductively prove the doctrine, though they placed some restrictions on the evidences that could be considered. Others such as Cornelius Van Til, Gordon Clark, and John Frame have accepted circularity as inevitable in the ultimate presuppositions of any system and seek instead to prove the validity of their position by transcendental arguments related to consistency. Modernist Christianity Views of Biblical Inspiration The typical view within Liberal Christianity and Progressive Christianity rejects the idea that the Bible is divinely inspired in a unique way. Some advocates of higher criticism who espouse this view even go so far as to regard the Bible as purely a product of human invention. However, most form critics, such as Rudolf Bultmann and Walter Brueggemann, still regard the Bible as a sacred text, just not a text that communicates the unaltered word of God. They see it instead as true, divinely inspired theology mixed with foreign elements that can sometimes be inconsistent with the overarching messages found in Scripture and that have discernible roots in history, mythology, or ancient cultural/cultic practices. As such, form critics attempt to separate the kernel of inspired truth from the husk that contains it, doing so through various exegetical methods. Neo-orthodox Views of Biblical Inspiration
The Neo-orthodox doctrine of
inspiration is summarized by saying that the Bible is "the word
of God" but not "the words of God". It is only when
one reads the text that it becomes the word of God to him or her.
This view is a reaction to the Modernist doctrine, which,
Neo-orthodox proponents argue, eroded the value and significance of
the Christian faith, and simultaneously a rejection of the idea of
textual inerrancy. Karl Barth and Emil Brunner were primary advocates
of this approach. Biblical Infallibility Not to be confused with Biblical Inerrancy. Biblical infallibility is the belief that what the Bible says regarding matters of faith and Christian practice is wholly useful and true. It is the "belief that the Bible is completely trustworthy as a guide to salvation and the life of faith and will not fail to accomplish its purpose. Some equate 'inerrancy' and 'infallibility'; others do not." Infallibility and inerrancy From dictionary definitions, Frame (2002) insists that "infallibility" is a stronger term than "inerrancy." "'Inerrant' means there are no errors; 'infallible' means there can be no errors." Yet he agrees that "modern theologians insist on redefining that word also, so that it actually says less than 'inerrancy.'" Some denominations that teach infallibility hold that the historical or scientific details, which may be irrelevant to matters of faith and Christian practice, may contain errors. This contrasts with the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy, which holds that the scientific, geographic, and historic details of the scriptural texts in their original manuscripts are completely true and without error, though the scientific claims of scripture must be interpreted in the light of the phenomenological nature of the Biblical narratives. For example, Davis suggests "The Bible is inerrant if and only if it makes no false or misleading statements on any topic whatsoever. The Bible is infallible if and only if it makes no false or misleading statements on any matter of faith and practice." In this sense it is seen as distinct from Biblical inerrancy, but always accompanying it. The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy uses the term in this sense, saying, "Infallibility and inerrancy may be distinguished but not separated." Biblical Integrity The idea of biblical integrity strengthens the concept of infallibility by suggesting that current Judeo-Christian biblical text is complete and without error (inerrant). The proposal suggests that the "integrity" of Biblical text—to include its present day message, purpose, and content—has never been corrupted or degraded. Background of Biblical Infallibility The idea of Biblical infallibility gained ground in Protestant churches as a fundamentalist reaction against a general modernization movement within Christianity in the 19th and early 20th centuries. In the Catholic church, the reaction produced the concept of Papal infallibility, while in the Evangelical churches the infallibility of the Bible was asserted. "Both movements represent a synthesis of a theological position and an ideological-political stance against the erosion of traditional authorities. Both are antimoderne and literalist." No matter how little common ground was apparent at the time between Roman Catholicism and the Evangelical Right, these two reformulations of scriptural and papal supremacy represented a defiant assertiveness in reaction against the crisis of religious authority that was engulfing Western religion.
Catholicism The Catholic Church speaks not about infallibility of Scripture but about its freedom from error, holding "the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture". The Second Vatican Council, citing earlier declarations, stated: "Since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation". It added: "Since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words."
Methodism John Wesley, the founder of the Methodist Church, "used the word 'infallible' to describe the Scriptures. In his sermon on 'The Means of Grace,' Wesley says, 'The same truth (namely, that this is the great means God has ordained for conveying his manifold grace to man) is delivered, in the fullest manner that can be conceived, in the words which immediately follow: All Scripture is given by inspiration of God; consequently, all Scripture is infallibly true; and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness; to the end that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works (2 Tim. 3:16, 17)' (emphasis added)." As such, "orthodox, evangelical, and traditionalist United Methodists believe in the 'infallibility' of Scripture." "Article V—Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation" in the Articles of Religion states that The Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation; so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man that it should be believed as an article of faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those canonical books of the Old and New Testament of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.
The United Methodist theologian
Rev. Thomas A. Lambrecht therefore writes that "The Bible is not
God, and those who believe in its infallibility do not worship the
Bible. But the Bible is God’s most objective and detailed way of
communicating with us, God’s people. Its infallibility means we
can trust the Bible to truly communicate to us what God wants us to
believe and how God wants us to live. To ignore or disobey the
teachings of Scripture is to contradict its infallibility, which puts
us on a completely different theological path altogether." Biblical Inerrancy Not to be confused with Biblical Infallibility. This topic is about the Christian doctrinal position. For Jewish doctrinal positions, see Rabbinic literature. Biblical inerrancy, as formulated in the "Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy", is the doctrine that the Bible "is without error or fault in all its teaching"; or, at least, that "Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact". A formal statement in favor of biblical inerrancy was published in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society in 1978. The signatories to the "Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy" admit that "inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture". However, even though there may be no extant original manuscripts of the Bible, those which exist can be considered inerrant, because, as the statement reads: "the autographic text of Scripture, ... in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy". Some equate inerrancy with infallibility; others do not. Biblical inerrancy should not be confused with Biblical literalism. There are a minority of biblical inerrantists who go further than the "Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy", arguing that the original text has been perfectly preserved and passed down through time. The copies of the original language texts that are used by modern translators as the source for translations of the books of the Bible are reconstructions of the original text. Today's versions are based upon scholarly comparison of thousands of biblical manuscripts (such as the Dead Sea Scrolls) and thousands of biblical citations in the writings of the early Church Fathers. The "doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture" held by the Catholic Church, as expressed by the Second Vatican Council, is that "the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation."
Terms and Opinions See also: Biblical inspiration, Biblical infallibility, Biblical literalism, Biblical authority, Criticism of the Bible, Internal consistency of the Bible, Science and the Bible and The Bible and history
The word inerrancy is formed from the word inerrant, from the Latin inerra-ntem, (being in- + erra-ntem the present participle of erra-re to err or wander). It is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as "That does not err; free from error; unerring." Another word often used to characterize the Bible is "infallible". From dictionary definitions, Frame (2002) insists that this is a stronger term than "inerrant". "'Inerrant' means there are no errors; 'infallible' means there can be no errors". Yet he agrees that "modern theologians insist on redefining that word also, so that it actually says less than 'inerrancy. '" Lindsell (1978) states that "The very nature of inspiration renders the Bible infallible, which means that it cannot deceive us. It is inerrant in that it is not false, mistaken, or defective". According to H. Chaim Schimmel, Judaism had never promulgated a belief in the literal word of the Hebrew Bible, hence the co-existence of the Oral Torah. Within Christianity, some mainstream Evangelical and Protestant groups adhere to the current inerrancy of Scripture as it reads today. However, some note that "Evangelical scholars ... doubt that accepting the doctrine of biblical inerrancy is the best way to assert their belief in biblical authority". The Catholic Church's view was authoritatively expressed by the Second Vatican Council, citing earlier declarations, in the following terms: "Since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation". The Council added: "Since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words." Some literalist or conservative Christians teach that the Bible lacks error in every way in all matters: chronology, history, biology, sociology, psychology, politics, physics, math, art, and so on. Other Christians believe that the Scriptures are always right (do not err) only in fulfilling their primary purpose: revealing God, God's vision, God's purposes, and God's good news to humanity. Mainstream Judaism and Christian traditions hold that the Torah or Pentateuch of the Hebrew Bible was physically written by Moses—not by God himself, although in the process of transcription many thousands of times copyists have allowed errors, or (some suggest) even forgeries in the text to accumulate. According to this position, God originally spoke through a select person to reveal his purpose, character and plan for humanity. However, the Bible does record some direct statements from God (i.e.,"Thus says the Lord ..". , "And God said ..". , etc.). The significance of most phrases, their parts, grammar, and occasionally individual words, letters and even pronunciation in the Hebrew Bible are the subject of many rabbinic discussions in the Talmud. History of The Bible During the 18th and 19th centuries, various episodes of the Bible (for example the Noahide worldwide flood, the creation in six days, and the creation of women from a man's rib) began increasingly to be seen as legendary. This led to further questioning of the veracity of Biblical texts. According to an article in Theology Today published in 1975, "There have been long periods in the history of the church when biblical inerrancy has not been a critical question. It has in fact been noted that only in the last two centuries can we legitimately speak of a formal doctrine of inerrancy. The arguments pro and con have filled many books, and almost anyone can join in the debate". In the 1970s and '80s, however, the debate in theological circles, which centered on the issue of whether or not the Bible was infallible or both infallible and inerrant, came into the spotlight. Some notable Christian seminaries, such as Princeton Theological Seminary and Fuller Theological Seminary, were formally adopting the doctrine of infallibility while rejecting the doctrine of inerrancy. The other side of this debate focused largely around the magazine Christianity Today and the book entitled The Battle for the Bible by Harold Lindsell. The author asserted that losing the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture was the thread that would unravel the church and Conservative Christians rallied behind this idea. Inerrancy in autographic texts and modern versions[edit] Those who hold the inerrancy of the Bible can disagree as to whether inerrancy refers to modern Bibles or only to the original, autographic texts. There are also disagreements about whether, because the autographic texts no longer survive, modern texts can be claimed to be inerrant. Article X of the Chicago statement agrees that the inspiration for the words of the Bible can only strictly be applied to the autographs. However, the same article asserts that the original text "can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy", so that the lack of the originals does not affect the claim of Biblical inerrancy of such recovered, modern texts. Robert Saucy, for instance, reports that writers have argued that "99 percent of the original words in the New Testament are recoverable with a high degree of certainty." Textual tradition of the New Testament[edit] See also Biblical Canon, Bible translations and Textual criticism There are over 5,600 Greek manuscripts containing all or part of the New Testament, as well as over 10,000 Latin manuscripts, and perhaps 500 other manuscripts of various other languages. Additionally, there are the Patristic writings which contain copious quotes, across the early centuries, of the scriptures. Most of these manuscripts date to the Middle Ages. The oldest complete copy of the New Testament, the Codex Sinaiticus, which includes two other books not now included in the accepted NT canon, dates to the 4th century. The earliest fragment of a New Testament book is the Rylands Library Papyrus P52 which dates to the mid 2nd century and is the size of a business card. Very early manuscripts are rare. The average NT manuscript is about 200 pages, and in all, there are about 1.3 million pages of text. No two manuscripts are identical, except in the smallest fragments, and the many manuscripts which preserve New Testament texts differ among themselves in many respects, with some estimates of 200,000 to 300,000 differences among the various manuscripts. According to Bart Ehrman: Most changes are careless errors that are easily recognized and corrected. Christian scribes often made mistakes simply because they were tired or inattentive or, sometimes, inept. Indeed, the single most common mistake in our manuscripts involves "orthography", significant for little more than showing that scribes in antiquity could spell no better than most of us can today. In addition, we have numerous manuscripts in which scribes have left out entire words, verses, or even pages of a book, presumably by accident. Sometimes scribes rearranged the words on the page, for example, by leaving out a word and then reinserting it later in the sentence. In the 2008 Greer-Heard debate series, noted New Testament scholars Bart Ehrman and Daniel B. Wallace discussed these variances in detail. Wallace mentioned that understanding the meaning of the number of variances is not as simple as looking at the number of variances, but one must consider also the number of manuscripts, the types of errors, and among the more serious discrepancies, what impact they do or do not have. For hundreds of years, biblical and textual scholars have examined the manuscripts extensively. Since the eighteenth century, they have employed the techniques of textual criticism to reconstruct how the extant manuscripts of the New Testament texts might have descended, and to recover earlier recensions of the texts. However, King James Version (KJV)-only inerrantists often prefer the traditional texts (i.e., Textus Receptus which is the basis of KJV) used in their churches to modern attempts of reconstruction (i.e., Nestle-Aland Greek Text which is the basis of modern translations), arguing that the Holy Spirit is just as active in the preservation of the scriptures as in their creation. KJV-only inerrantist Jack Moorman says that at least 356 doctrinal passages are affected by the differences between the Textus Receptus and the Nestle-Aland Greek Text. Some familiar examples of Gospel passages in the Textus Receptus thought to have been added by later interpolaters and omitted in the Nestle Aland Greek Text include the Pericope Adulteræ, [Jn 7:53-8:11] the Comma Johanneum, [1 Jn 5:7–8] and the longer ending in Mark 16. [Mk 16:9-20] Many modern Bibles have footnotes to indicate areas where there is disagreement between source documents. Bible commentaries offer discussions of these. Inerrantist response[edit] Evangelical inerrantists[edit] Evangelical Christians generally accept the findings of textual criticism, and nearly all modern translations, including the New Testament of the New International Version, are based on "the widely accepted principles of ... textual criticism". Since textual criticism suggests that the manuscript copies are not perfect, strict inerrancy is only applied to the original autographs (the manuscripts written by the original authors) rather than the copies. However, challenging this view, evangelical theologian Wayne Grudem writes: For most practical purposes, then, the current published scholarly texts of the Hebrew Old Testament and Greek New Testament are the same as the original manuscripts. Thus, when we say that the original manuscripts were inerrant, we are also implying that over 99 percent of the words in our present manuscripts are also inerrant, for they are exact copies of the originals. The "Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy" says, "We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture". However, it also reads: "We deny that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected by the absence of the autographs. We further deny that this absence renders the assertion of Biblical inerrancy invalid or irrelevant." Less commonly, more conservative views are held by some groups: King James Only Inerrantists[edit] A faction of those in the "King James Only movement" rejects the whole discipline of textual criticism and holds that the translators of the King James Version English Bible were guided by God and that the KJV thus is to be taken as the authoritative English Bible. However, those who hold this opinion do not extend it to the KJV translation into English of the Apocryphal books, which were produced along with the rest of the Authorized Version. Modern translations differ from the KJV on numerous points, sometimes resulting from access to different early texts, largely as a result of work in the field of textual criticism. Upholders of the KJV-only position nevertheless hold that the Protestant canon of KJV is itself an inspired text and therefore remains authoritative. The King James Only movement asserts that the KJV is the sole English translation free from error. Textus Receptus[edit] Similar to the King James Only view is the view that translations must be derived from the Textus Receptus in order to be considered inerrant. As the King James Version is an English translation, this leaves speakers of other languages in a difficult position, hence the belief in the Textus Receptus as the inerrant source text for translations to modern languages. For example, in Spanish-speaking cultures the commonly accepted "KJV-equivalent" is the Reina-Valera 1909 revision (with different groups accepting, in addition to the 1909 or in its place, the revisions of 1862 or 1960). It should also be noted that the New King James Version was also translated from the Textus Receptus. Justifications[edit] A number of reasons are offered by Christian theologians to justify Biblical inerrancy. Norman Geisler and William Nix (1986) claim that scriptural inerrancy is established by a number of observations and processes, which include: * The historical accuracy of the Bible * The Bible's claims of its own inerrancy * Church history and tradition * One's individual experience with God
Daniel B. Wallace, Professor of New Testament at Dallas Theological Seminary, divides the various evidences into two approaches: deductive and inductive approaches. Deductive justifications[edit] The first deductive justification is that the Bible claims to be inspired by God (for instance "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness"[2 Tim 3:16]) and because God is perfect, the Bible must also be perfect and, hence, free from error. For instance, the statement of faith of the Evangelical Theological Society says, "The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs". Supportive of this is the idea that God cannot lie. W J Mcrea writes: The Bible then makes two basic claims: it asserts unequivocally that God cannot lie and that the Bible is the Word of God. It is primarily from a combination of these facts that the argument for inerrancy comes. And Grenz has: Because God cannot lie and because Scripture is inspired by God, the Bible must be wholly true. This syllogism may be valid for establishing inerrancy, but it cannot define the concept. Also, from Geisler: Those who defend inerrancy are deductivists pure and simple. They begin with certain assumptions about God and the Scriptures, namely, that God cannot lie and the Scriptures are the Word of God. From these assumptions, inerrantists deduce that the Bible is without error. A second reason offered is that Jesus and the apostles used the Old Testament in a way that assumes it is inerrant. For instance, in Galatians 3:16, Paul bases his argument on the fact that the word "seed" in the Genesis reference to "Abraham and his seed" is singular rather than plural. This (as claimed) sets a precedent for inerrant interpretation down to the individual letters of the words. Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, "And to seeds", as (referring) to many, but (rather) to one, "And to your seed", that is, Christ.[Gal 3:16] Similarly, Jesus said that every minute detail of the Old Testament Law must be fulfilled,[Mt 5:18] indicating (it is claimed) that every detail must be correct. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. — [Mt. 5:18 (KJV)] Although in these verses, Jesus and the apostles are only referring to the Old Testament, the argument is considered by some to extend to the New Testament writings, because 2 Peter 3:16 accords the status of Scripture to New Testament writings also: "He (Paul) writes the same way in all his letters...which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures".[2 Pet. 3:16] Another deductive argument would be the strength of falsifiability. The argument is that Biblical inerrancy is a falsifiable stance (it can be proven false). In this case, if errors are proven in the Biblical text then the stance of Biblical inerrancy is itself false. Inductive justifications[edit] Wallace describes the inductive approach by enlisting the Presbyterian theologian Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield: In his Inspiration and Authority of the Bible, Warfield lays out an argument for inerrancy that has been virtually ignored by today's evangelicals. Essentially, he makes a case for inerrancy on the basis of inductive evidence, rather than deductive reasoning. Most evangelicals today follow E.J. Young's deductive approach toward bibliology, forgetting the great articulator of inerrancy. But Warfield starts with the evidence that the Bible is a historical document, rather than with the presupposition that it is inspired. Inspiration[edit] In the Nicene Creed Christians confess their belief that the Holy Spirit "has spoken through the prophets". This creed has been normative for Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans and all mainline Protestant denominations except for those descended from the non-credal Stone-Campbell movement. As noted by Alister E. McGrath, "An important element in any discussion of the manner in which Scripture is inspired, and the significance which is attached to this, is 2 Timothy 3:16-17, which speaks of Scripture as 'God-breathed' (theopneustos)". According to McGrath, "the reformers did not see the issue of inspiration as linked with the absolute historical reliability or factual inerrancy of the biblical texts". He says, "The development of ideas of 'biblical infallibility' or 'inerrancy' within Protestantism can be traced to the United States in the middle of the nineteenth century". People who believe in inerrancy think that the Bible does not merely contain the Word of God, but every word of it is, because of verbal inspiration, the direct, immediate word of God. The Lutheran Apology of the Augsburg Confession identifies Holy Scripture with the Word of God and calls the Holy Spirit the author of the Bible. Because of this, Lutherans confess in the Formula of Concord, "we receive and embrace with our whole heart the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as the pure, clear fountain of Israel". Lutherans (and other Protestants) believe apocryphal books are neither inspired nor written by prophets, and that they contain errors and were never included in the "Palestinian Canon" that Jesus and the Apostles are said to have used, and therefore are not a part of Holy Scripture. The prophetic and apostolic Scriptures are authentic as written by the prophets and apostles. A correct translation of their writings is God's Word because it has the same meaning as the original Hebrew and Greek. A mistranslation is not God's word, and no human authority can invest it with divine authority. However, the 19th century Anglican biblical scholar S. R. Driver held a contrary view, saying that, "as inspiration does not suppress the individuality of the biblical writers, so it does not altogether neutralise their human infirmities or confer upon them immunity from error". Similarly, J.K. Mozley, an early 20th-century Anglican theologian has argued: That the Bible is inspired is, indeed, a primary Christian conviction; it is from this that certain consequences have been drawn, such as infallibility and inerrancy, which retain their place in Christian thought because they are held to be bound up with the affirmation of inspiration. But the deductions can be rejected without any ambiguity as to the fact of inspiration. Neither 'fundamentalists' nor sceptics are to be followed at this point... the Bible is inspired because it is the adequate and indispensable vehicle of revelation; but inspiration does not amount to dictation by God. Divine authority[edit] For a believer in biblical inerrancy, Holy Scripture is the Word of God, and carries the full authority of God. Every single statement of the Bible calls for instant and unqualified acceptance. Every doctrine of the Bible is the teaching of God and therefore requires full agreement. Every promise of the Bible calls for unshakable trust in its fulfillment. Every command of the Bible is the directive of God himself and therefore demands willing observance. Sufficiency[edit] According to some believers, the Bible contains everything that they need to know in order to obtain salvation and to live a Christian life, and there are no deficiencies in Scripture that need to be filled with by tradition, pronouncements of the Pope, new revelations, or present-day development of doctrine. Clarifications[edit] Accuracy[edit] Harold Lindsell points out that it is a "gross distortion" to state that people who believe in inerrancy suppose every statement made in the Bible is true (as opposed to accurate). He indicates there are expressly false statements in the Bible which are reported accurately. He notes that "All the Bible does, for example in the case of Satan, is to report what Satan actually said. Whether what he said was true or false is another matter. Christ stated that the devil is a liar". Limitations[edit] Many who believe in the Inspiration of scripture teach that it is infallible but not inerrant. Those who subscribe to infallibility believe that what the scriptures say regarding matters of faith and Christian practice are wholly useful and true. Some denominations that teach infallibility hold that the historical or scientific details, which may be irrelevant to matters of faith and Christian practice, may contain errors. Those who believe in inerrancy hold that the scientific, geographic, and historic details of the scriptural texts in their original manuscripts are completely true and without error, though the scientific claims of scripture must be interpreted in the light of its phenomenological nature, not just with strict, clinical literality, which was foreign to historical narratives. Proponents of biblical inerrancy generally do not teach that the Bible was dictated directly by God, but that God used the "distinctive personalities and literary styles of the writers" of scripture and that God's inspiration guided them to flawlessly project his message through their own language and personality. Infallibility and inerrancy refer to the original texts of the Bible. Scholars who are proponents of biblical inerrancy acknowledge the potential for human error in transmission and translation, and therefore only affirm as the Word of God translations that "faithfully represent the original". Metaphor and literalism[edit] Even if the bible is inerrant, it may need to be interpreted to distinguish between what statements are metaphorical and which are literally true. Jeffrey Russell writes that "Metaphor is a valid way to interpret reality. The 'literal' meaning of words - which I call the overt reading - is insufficient for understanding reality because it never exhausts reality." He adds: Originating in Evangelicalism, the Fundamentalists affirmed that the Bible is to be read "literally" or overtly, leading some to reject not only physicalist evolution but even evolution science and to deny that life developed over billions of years. Evangelicals tended to believe in the "inerrancy" of the Bible (though they defined that term variously), a view that sometimes could unhelpfully turn the Bible into an authority on science and history. Also, figures such as Scot McKnight have argued that the Bible clearly transcends multiple genres and Hebrew prose poems cannot be evaluated by a reader the same as a science textbook. Criticism[edit] Scientific and historical criticism[edit] See also: Criticism of the Bible, Internal consistency of the Bible, Science and the Bible and The Bible and history Biblical inerrancy has been criticized on the grounds that many statements that are found in Scripture, if taken literally, rather than phenomenologically, are untenable or contradictory. Many (although not all) of these instances, involve the Bible's relationship with history or science. Inerrancy is argued to be a falsifiable proposition: if the Bible is found to contain any mistakes or contradictions, the proposition of strict inerrancy has been refuted. Theological criticism[edit] Proponents of biblical inerrancy often cite 2 Timothy 3:16 as evidence that scripture is inerrant. For this argument, they prefer translations which render the verse as "all scripture is given by inspiration of God", and they interpret this to mean that the whole Bible must therefore be inerrant. However, critics of this doctrine think that the Bible makes no direct claim to be inerrant or infallible. C. H. Dodd argues the same sentence can also be translated "Every inspired scripture is also useful..." nor does the verse define the Biblical canon to which "scripture" refers. In addition, Michael T. Griffith, the Mormon apologist, writes Nowhere within its pages does the Bible teach or logically imply the doctrine of scriptural inerrancy. [Concerning] 2 Timothy 3:16 ... this passage merely says that "all scripture" is profitable for doctrine, reproof, etc. It says nothing about scripture being "perfect," or "inerrant," or "infallible," or "all-sufficient." If anything, Paul's words constitute a refutation of the idea of scriptural inerrancy ... What it does say is that scripture is useful, profitable, for the needs Of the pastoral ministry. The only "holy scriptures" Timothy could have known from childhood were the Hebrew scriptures, the Old Testament. And yet, would any Christian assert that in Paul's view the Old Testament was the final and complete word of God to man? Of course not. In any event, verse 15 makes it clear that in speaking of "all scripture" Paul was referring to the Jewish scriptures and perhaps to some of his own epistles. The New Testament as we know it simply did not exist yet. Furthermore, it is fairly certain that Paul's canon included some Jewish scriptures which are no longer found in the Old Testament, such as the book of Enoch. The Catholic New Jerusalem Bible also has a note that this passage refers only to the Old Testament writings understood to be scripture at the time it was written. Furthermore, the Catholic Veritas Bible website notes that "Rather than characterizing the Old Testament scriptures as required reading, Paul is simply promoting them as something useful or advantageous to learn. ... it falls far short of a salvational requirement or theological system. Moreover, the four purposes (to teach, correct, etc.) for which Scripture is declared to be "profitable" are solely the functions of the ministry. After all, Paul is addressing one of his new bishops (the "man of God"). Not a word addresses the use of Scripture by the laity." Another note in the Bible suggests that there are indications that Paul's writings were being considered, at least by the author of the Second Epistle of Peter, [2 Pet 3:16] as comparable to the Old Testament. The view that Biblical inerrancy can be justified by an appeal to prooftexts that refer to its divine inspiration has been criticized as circular reasoning, because these statements are only considered to be true if the Bible is already thought to be inerrant. None of these texts say that because a text is inspired, it is therefore always correct in its historical statements. In the introduction to his book Credible Christianity, Anglican Bishop Hugh Montefiore, makes this comment: The doctrine of biblical inerrancy seems inherently improbable, for two reasons. Firstly, the Scriptures contain what seem to be evident errors and contradictions (although great ingenuity has been applied to explain these away). Secondly, the books of the Old and New Testaments did not gain their place within the "canon", or list of approved books, as soon as they were written. The Old Testament canon was not closed until late in the Apostolic age, and the New Testament canon was not finally closed until the fourth century. If all the Bible's contents were inerrant, one would have thought that this would have become apparent within a much shorter period. Meaning of "Word of God"[edit] Much debate over the kind of authority that should be accorded biblical texts centers on what is meant by the "Word of God". The term can refer to Christ himself as well as to the proclamation of his ministry as kerygma. However, biblical inerrancy differs from this orthodoxy in viewing the Word of God to mean the entire text of the Bible when interpreted didactically as God's teaching. The idea of the Bible itself as Word of God, as being itself God's revelation, is criticized in neo-orthodoxy. Here the Bible is seen as a unique witness to the people and deeds that do make up the Word of God. However, it is a wholly human witness. All books of the Bible were written by human beings. Thus, whether the Bible is—in whole or in part—the Word of God is not clear. However, some argue that the Bible can still be construed as the "Word of God" in the sense that these authors' statements may have been representative of, and perhaps even directly influenced by, God's own knowledge. There is only one instance in the Bible where the phrase "the Word of God" refers to something "written". The reference is to the Decalogue. However, most of the other references are to reported speech that is preserved in the Bible. The New Testament also contains a number of statements which refer to passages from the Old Testament as God's words, for instance Romans 3:2 (which says that the Jews have been "entrusted with the very words of God"), or the book of Hebrews, which often prefaces Old Testament quotations with words such as "God says". The Bible also contains words spoken by human beings about God, such as Eliphaz (Job 42:7) and the prayers and songs of the Psalter. That these are God's words addressed to us was at the root of a lively medieval controversy. The idea of the word of God is more that God is encountered in scripture, than that every line of scripture is a statement made by God. While the phrase "the Word of God" is never applied to the modern Bible within the Bible itself, supporters of inerrancy argue that this is because the Biblical canon was not closed. In 1 Thessalonians 2:13, the apostle Paul wrote to the church in Thessalonica "when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you welcomed it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God". Translation[edit] See also: Bible errata, Bible translations and English translations of the Bible Translation has given rise to a number of issues, as the original languages are often quite different in grammar as well as word meaning. Some believers trust their own translation to be the accurate one. One such group of believers is known as the King James Only movement. For readability, clarity, or other reasons, translators may choose different wording or sentence structure, and some translations may choose to paraphrase passages. Because some of the words in the original language have ambiguous or difficult to translate meanings, debates over the correct interpretation occur. Criticisms are also sometimes raised because of inconsistencies arising between different translations of the Hebrew or Greek text, as in the case of the virgin birth. The Virgin Birth[edit] See also: Virgin birth of Jesus One translation problem concerns the New Testament assertion that Jesus Christ was born of a virgin. If the Bible were inerrant, then this would be true. However, critics have suggested that the use of the word virgin may have been merely a translation error. Matthew 1:22-1:23 reads: "All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 'The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel'—which means, 'God with us.'" Here Matthew quotes the prophet Isaiah, but the Septuagint, the Greek text of the Hebrew Bible he was using, was mistaken in its translation of the word almah in Isaiah 7:14: Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin [(almah)] shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. On this point, Browning's A Dictionary of the Bible states that in the Septuagint (dated as early as the late 2nd century BCE), "the Greek parthenos was used to translate the Hebrew almah, which means a 'young woman'". The dictionary also notes that "the earliest writers of the [New Testament] (Mark and Paul) show no knowledge of such a virginal conception". Furthermore, the Encyclopedia Judaica calls this "a two-millennium misunderstanding of Isaiah 7:14", which "indicates nothing concerning the chastity of the woman in question". Another writer, David Strauss in The Life of Jesus, writes: "... [the question] ought to be decided by the fact that the word does not signify an immaculate, but a marriageable young woman". He suggests that Isaiah was referring to events of his own time, and that the young woman in question may have been "perhaps the prophet's own wife". Biblical Literalism Biblical literalism is a term used differently by different authors concerning biblical interpretation. It can equate to the dictionary definition of literalism: "adherence to the exact letter or the literal sense", where literal means "in accordance with, involving, or being the primary or strict meaning of the word or words; not figurative or metaphorical". This approach often obscures the literary aspects and consequently the primary meaning of the text. Alternatively, the term can refer to the historical-grammatical method, a hermeneutic technique that strives to uncover the meaning of the text by taking into account not just the grammatical words, but also the syntactical aspects, the cultural and historical background, and the literary genre. It emphasizes the referential aspect of the words in the text without denying the relevance of literary aspects, genre, or figures of speech within the text (e.g., parable, allegory, simile, or metaphor). It does not necessarily lead to complete agreement upon one single interpretation of any given passage. This Christian fundamentalist and evangelical hermeneutical approach to scripture is used extensively by fundamentalist Christians, in contrast to the historical-critical method of liberal Christianity. Those who relate biblical literalism to the historical-grammatical method use the word "letterism" to cover interpreting the Bible according to the dictionary definition of literalism. Background of Biblical Literalism Fundamentalists and evangelicals sometimes refer to themselves as literalists or biblical literalists. Sociologists also use the term in reference to conservative Christian beliefs which include not just literalism but also biblical inerrancy. The term "biblical literalism" is often used as a pejorative to describe or ridicule the interpretative approaches of fundamentalist or evangelical Christians. A 2011 Gallup survey reports, "Three in 10 Americans interpret the Bible literally, saying it is the actual word of God. That is similar to what Gallup has measured over the last two decades, but down from the 1970s and 1980s. A 49% plurality of Americans say the Bible is the inspired word of God but that it should not be taken literally, consistently the most common view in Gallup's nearly 40-year history of this question. Another 17% consider the Bible an ancient book of stories recorded by man." History of Biblical Literalism See also: Biblical canon The high regard for religious scriptures in the Judeo-Christian tradition seems to relate in part to a process of canonization of the Hebrew Bible which occurred over the course of a few centuries from approximately 200 BCE to 200 CE. In the Jewish tradition, the highly regarded written word represented a direct conduit to the mind of God, and the later Rabbinical School of Judaism encouraged the attendant scholarship that accompanied a literary religion. Similarly, the canonization of the New Testament by the Early Christian Church became an important aspect in the formation of the separate religious identity for Christianity. Ecclesiastical authorities used the acceptance or rejection of specific scriptural books as a major indicator of group identity, and it played a role in the determination of excommunications in Christianity and in cherem in the Jewish tradition. Church father Augustine of Hippo (354–430) wrote of the need for reason in interpreting Jewish and Christian scripture, and of much of the Book of Genesis being an extended metaphor. But Augustine also implicitly accepted the literalism of the creation of Adam and Eve, and explicitly accepted the literalism of the virginity of Jesus's mother Mary. In the Reformation, Martin Luther (1483-1546) separated the biblical apocrypha from the rest of the Old Testament books, and the Westminster Confession of 1646 demoted them to a status that denied their canonicity. American Protestant literalists and biblical inerrantists have adopted this truncated Protestant Bible as a work not merely inspired by God but, in fact, representing the Word of God without possibility of error or contradiction. Biblical literalism first became an issue in the 18th century. Karen Armstrong sees "[p]reoccupation with literal truth" as "a product of the scientific revolution". Clarity of scripture[edit] The vast majority of evangelical and fundamentalist Christians hold that scripture is clear, that the basic meaning and teachings of scripture may be understood by the average person. It refers to the product (teachings of scripture) rather than the process of interpretation itself (exegesis). Martin Luther distinguished between external and internal aspects within the clarity of scripture. External clarity concerns the principles of hermeneutics (including grammatical aspects) and guidance into understanding through the process of interpretation. The internal clarity concerns illumination of the believer—that is, guidance into understanding by the Holy Spirit. The doctrine of clarity of scripture does not mean that no interpretative principles are necessary, or that there is no gap between the culture in which the Bible was written and the culture of a modern reader. Instead, exegetical and interpretative principles are utilized as part of the process of closing that cultural gap. The doctrine does deny that the Bible is a code to decipher, or that it cannot be understood apart from complex academic analysis as is typical in the historical-critical method of interpretation. Biblical literalists believe that, unless a passage is clearly intended as allegory, poetry, or some other genre, the Bible should be interpreted as literal statements by the author. Who may appropriately decide when a passage is allegorical or literal, however, is not defined. Fundamentalists typically treat as simple history, according to its plain sense, such passages as the Genesis account of creation, the deluge and Noah's ark, and the unnaturally long life-spans of the patriarchs given in genealogies of Genesis, as well as the strict historicity of the narrative accounts of Ancient Israel, the supernatural interventions of God in history, and Jesus' miracles. Literalism does not deny that parables, metaphors and allegory exist in the Bible, but rather relies on contextual interpretations based on the author's intention. As a part of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, conservative Christian scholarship affirms the following: WE AFFIRM the necessity of interpreting the Bible according to its literal, or normal, sense. The literal sense is the grammatical-historical sense, that is, the meaning which the writer expressed. Interpretation according to the literal sense will take account of all figures of speech and literary forms found in the text. WE DENY the legitimacy of any approach to Scripture that attributes to it meaning which the literal sense does not support. Noted inerrantist Norman Geisler, in his commentary on the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics, states: The literal sense of Scripture is strongly affirmed here. To be sure the English word literal carries some problematic connotations with it. Hence the words normal and grammatical-historical are used to explain what is meant. The literal sense is also designated by the more descriptive title grammatical-historical sense. This means the correct interpretation is the one which discovers the meaning of the text in its grammatical forms and in the historical, cultural context in which the text is expressed. Criticism[edit] Steve Falkenberg, professor of religious psychology at Eastern Kentucky University, observes: I've never met anyone who actually believes the Bible is literally true. I know a bunch of people who say they believe the Bible is literally true but nobody is actually a literalist. Taken literally, the Bible says the earth is flat and sitting on pillars and cannot move (Ps 93:1, Ps 96:10, 1 Sam 2:8, Job 9:6). It says that great sea monsters are set to guard the edge of the sea (Job 41, Ps 104:26). ... Conrad Hyers, professor of comparative religion at Gustavus Adolphus College in St. Peter, Minnesota, criticizes biblical literalism as:
... a
mentality [that] manifests itself [not] only in conservative
churches, private-school enclaves, television programs of the
evangelical right, and a considerable amount of Christian bookstore
material; one often finds a literalist understanding of Bible and
faith being assumed by those who have no religious inclinations, or
who are avowedly antireligious in sentiment. Even in educated circles
the possibility of more sophisticated theologies... is easily
obscured by burning straw effigies of biblical literalism. The original texts of the Tanakh were mainly in Hebrew, with some portions in Aramaic. In addition to the authoritative Masoretic Text, Jews still refer to the Septuagint, the translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek, and the Targum Onkelos, an Aramaic version of the Bible. There are several different ancient versions of the Tanakh in Hebrew, mostly differing by spelling, and the traditional Jewish version is based on the version known as Aleppo Codex. Even in this version there are words which are traditionally read differently from written, because the oral tradition is considered more fundamental than the written one, and presumably mistakes had been made in copying the text over the generations. The primary biblical text for early Christians was the Septuagint. In addition, they translated the Hebrew Bible into several other languages. Translations were made into Syriac, Coptic, Ethiopic, and Latin, among other languages. The Latin translations were historically the most important for the Church in the West, while the Greek-speaking East continued to use the Septuagint translations of the Old Testament and had no need to translate the New Testament. The earliest Latin translation was the Old Latin text, or Vetus Latina, which, from internal evidence, seems to have been made by several authors over a period of time. It was based on the Septuagint, and thus included books not in the Hebrew Bible. Pope Damasus I assembled the first list of books of the Bible at the Council of Rome in AD 382. He commissioned Saint Jerome to produce a reliable and consistent text by translating the original Greek and Hebrew texts into Latin. This translation became known as the Latin Vulgate Bible and in 1546 at the Council of Trent was declared by the Roman Catholic Church to be the only authentic and official Bible in the Latin Church. Since the Protestant Reformation, Bible translations for many languages have been made. The Bible continues to be translated to new languages, largely by Christian organisations such as Wycliffe Bible Translators, New Tribes Mission and Bible societies. Bible translations, worldwide (as of November 2014) Number Statistic 7,000 Approximate number of languages spoken in the world today 2,195 Number of translations into new languages currently in progress 1,329 Number of languages with a translation of the New Testament 531 Number of languages with a translation of the Bible (Protestant Canon) For More Detailed Information See Bible Translations Views John Riches, professor of Divinity and Biblical Criticism at the University of Glasgow, provides the following view of the diverse historical influences of the Bible: It has inspired some of the great monuments of human thought, literature, and art; it has equally fuelled some of the worst excesses of human savagery, self-interest, and narrow-mindedness. It has inspired men and women to acts of great service and courage, to fight for liberation and human development; and it has provided the ideological fuel for societies which have enslaved their fellow human beings and reduced them to abject poverty. ... It has, perhaps above all, provided a source of religious and moral norms which have enabled communities to hold together, to care for, and to protect one another; yet precisely this strong sense of belonging has in turn fuelled ethnic, racial, and international tension and conflict. Other religions Main article: Islamic view of the Christian Bible In Islam, the Bible is held to reflect true unfolding revelation from God; but revelation which had been corrupted or distorted (in Arabic: tahrif); which necessitated the giving of the Qur'an to the Islamic prophet, Muhammad, to correct this deviation. Members of other religions may also seek inspiration from the Bible. For example Rastafaris view the Bible as essential to their religion and Unitarian Universalists view it as "one of many important religious texts". Biblical studies Main articles: Biblical studies and Biblical criticism Biblical criticism refers to the investigation of the Bible as a text, and addresses questions such as authorship, dates of composition, and authorial intention. It is not the same as criticism of the Bible, which is an assertion against the Bible being a source of information or ethical guidance, or observations that the Bible may have translation errors. Higher criticism Main articles: Higher criticism and Lower criticism In the 17th century Thomas Hobbes collected the current evidence to conclude outright that Moses could not have written the bulk of the Torah. Shortly afterwards the philosopher Baruch Spinoza published a unified critical analysis, arguing that the problematic passages were not isolated cases that could be explained away one by one, but pervasive throughout the five books, concluding that it was "clearer than the sun at noon that the Pentateuch was not written by Moses . . ." Despite determined opposition from Christians, both Catholic and Protestant, the views of Hobbes and Spinoza gained increasing acceptance amongst scholars. Archaeological and historical research Main articles: Biblical archaeology school and The Bible and history Biblical archaeology is the archaeology that relates to and sheds light upon the Hebrew Scriptures and the Christian Greek Scriptures (or "New Testament"). It is used to help determine the lifestyle and practices of people living in biblical times. There are a wide range of interpretations in the field of biblical archaeology. One broad division includes biblical maximalism which generally takes the view that most of the Old Testament or Hebrew Bible is based on history although it is presented through the religious viewpoint of its time. It is considered the opposite of biblical minimalism which considers the Bible a purely post-exilic (5th century BCE and later) composition. Even among those scholars who adhere to biblical minimalism, the Bible is a historical document containing first-hand information on the Hellenistic and Roman eras, and there is universal scholarly consensus that the events of the 6th century BCE Babylonian captivity have a basis in history. The historicity of the biblical account of the history of ancient Israel and Judah of the 10th to 7th centuries BCE is disputed in scholarship. The biblical account of the 8th to 7th centuries BCE is widely, but not universally, accepted as historical, while the verdict on the earliest period of the United Monarchy (10th century BCE) and the historicity of David is unclear. Archaeological evidence providing information on this period, such as the Tel Dan Stele, can potentially be decisive. The biblical account of events of the Exodus from Egypt in the Torah, and the migration to the Promised Land and the period of Judges are not considered historical in scholarship. Regarding the New Testament, the setting being the Roman Empire in the 1st century CE, the historical context is well established. There has been some debate on the historicity of Jesus, but the mainstream opinion is that Jesus was one of several known historical itinerant preachers in 1st-century Roman Judea, teaching in the context of the religious upheavals and sectarianism of Second Temple Judaism. Criticism Main article: Criticism of the Bible In modern times, the view that the Bible should be accepted as historically accurate and as a reliable guide to morality has been questioned by many mainstream academics in the field of biblical criticism. Most Christian groups claim that the Bible is inspired by God, and some oppose interpretations of the Bible that are not traditional or "plain reading". Some groups within the most conservative Protestant circles believe that the Authorized King James Version is the only accurate English translation of the Bible, and accept it as infallible. They are generally referred to as "King James Only". Many within Christian fundamentalism – as well as much of Orthodox Judaism—strongly support the idea that the Bible is a historically accurate record of actual events and a primary source of moral guidance.
In addition to concerns about
morality, inerrancy, or historicity, there remain some questions of
which books should be included in the Bible (see canon of scripture).
Jews discount the New Testament, most Christians deny the legitimacy
of the New Testament apocrypha, and a view sometimes referred to as
Jesusism does not affirm the scriptural authority of any biblical
text other than the teachings of Jesus in the Gospels. Old Testament This article is about the Old Testament canon of the Christian Bible. For the related Jewish canon, see Tanakh. For its Hebrew and Aramaic text, see Hebrew Bible. For the major textual tradition of that text, see Masoretic Text. For ancient Greek version, see Septuagint. The Old Testament is the first section of the Christian Bible, based primarily upon the Hebrew Bible, a collection of religious writings by ancient Israelites. It is the counterpart to the New Testament, the Christian Bible's second section. The Old Testament canon varies between Christian denominations; Protestants accept only the books found in the canon of the Hebrew Bible, dividing them into 39 books, while Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox churches accept somewhat larger collections of writings. The Old Testament consists of many distinct books written, compiled, and edited by various authors over a period of centuries. It is not entirely clear at what point the parameters of the Hebrew Bible, the basis for the Christian Old Testament, were fixed. Some scholars have opined that the canon of the Hebrew Bible was established already by about the 3rd century BC. The development of the various forms of the Christian Old Testament, at any rate, continued for centuries. The books of the Old Testament can be broadly divided into several sections:
The Books of the Bible are listed differently in the canons of Judaism and the Catholic, Protestant, Greek Orthodox, Slavonic Orthodox, Coptic, Georgian Orthodox, Armenian Apostolic, Syriac, Ethiopian and Eritrean Orthodox churches, although there is substantial overlap. A table comparing the canons of some of these traditions appears below, comparing the Jewish Bible with the Christian Old Testament and New Testament. For a detailed discussion of the differences, see the definition of "Biblical canon".
The Eastern Orthodox, Oriental
Orthodox and Eastern Catholic churches may have minor differences in
their lists of accepted books. The list given here for these churches
is the most inclusive: if at least one Eastern church accepts the
book it is included here. The disputed books are often called the Biblical apocrypha, a term that is sometimes used specifically (and possibly pejoratively in English) to describe the books in the Catholic and Orthodox canons that are absent from the Jewish Masoretic Text (also called the Tanakh or Miqra) and most modern Protestant Bibles. Catholic Christians, following the Canon of Trent, describe these books as deuterocanonical, meaning of "the second canon," while Greek Orthodox Christians, following the Synod of Jerusalem (1672), use the traditional name of anagignoskomena, meaning "that which is to be read." They are present in a few historic Protestant versions: the German Luther Bible included such books, as did the English 1611 King James Version.
Note that this table uses the
spellings and names present in modern editions of the Bible, such as
the NABRE, RSV and ESV. For the Orthodox canon, Septuagint titles are
provided in parentheses when these differ from those editions. For
the Catholic canon, the Rheimish titles are provided in parentheses
when these differ from those editions. The spelling and names in the
1609-1610 Douay-Rheims Bible and the 1749 revision by Bishop
Challoner (the edition currently in print) differ from those
spellings and names used in modern editions. Likewise, the King James
Version references some of these books by the traditional spelling
when referring to them in the New Testament, such as
"Esaias" (for Isaiah). In the spirit of ecumenism more
recent Catholic translations (e.g. the New American Bible, Jerusalem
Bible, and ecumenical translations used by Catholics, such as the
RSV-CE) use the same "standardized" (King James Version)
spellings and names as Protestant Bibles (e.g. 1 Chronicles as
opposed to the Rheimish 1 Paralipomenon, 1-2 Samuel and 1-2 Kings
instead of 1-4 Kings) in those books which are universally considered
canonical, the protocanonicals. The Talmud in Bava Batra 14b gives a
different order for the books in Nevi'im and Ketuvim. This order is
also quoted in Mishneh Torah Hilchot Sefer Torah 7:15. It is not
clear why the present order of the books in the Tanakh does not match
the order given in the Talmud (nor does it match that of the Christian Old
Testament). Empty table cells indicate that a book is absent from that canon.
Bible Translations The Bible has been translated into many languages from the biblical languages of Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. As of November 2014 the full Bible has been translated into 531 languages, and 2,883 languages have at least some portion of the Bible. The Latin Vulgate was dominant in Western Christianity through the Middle Ages. Since then, the Bible has been translated into many more languages. English Bible translations also have a rich and varied history of more than a millennium. Original text of Bible translations
Hebrew Bible The Tanakh was mainly written in Biblical Hebrew, with some portions (notably in Daniel and Ezra) in Biblical Aramaic. From the 9th century to the 15th century, Jewish scholars, today known as Masoretes, compared the text of all known biblical manuscripts in an effort to create a unified, standardized text. A series of highly similar texts eventually emerged, and any of these texts are known as Masoretic Texts (MT). The Masoretes also added vowel points (called niqqud) to the text, since the original text only contained consonant letters. This sometimes required the selection of an interpretation, since some words differ only in their vowels—their meaning can vary in accordance with the vowels chosen. In antiquity, variant Hebrew readings existed, some of which have survived in the Samaritan Pentateuch and other ancient fragments, as well as being attested in ancient versions in other languages.
New Testament The New Testament is written in Koine Greek. The discovery of older manuscripts, which belong to the Alexandrian text-type, including the 4th century Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, led scholars to revise their view about the original Greek text. Attempts to reconstruct the original text are called critical editions. Karl Lachmann based his critical edition of 1831 on manuscripts dating from the 4th century and earlier, to demonstrate that the Textus Receptus must be corrected according to these earlier texts. The autographs, the Greek manuscripts written by the original authors, have not survived. Scholars surmise the original Greek text from the versions that do survive. The three main textual traditions of the Greek New Testament are sometimes called the Alexandrian text-type (generally minimalist), the Byzantine text-type (generally maximalist), and the Western text-type (occasionally wild). Together they comprise most of the ancient manuscripts. Most variants among the manuscripts are minor, such as alternative spelling, alternative word order, the presence or absence of an optional definite article ("the"), and so on. Occasionally, a major variant happens when a portion of a text was accidentally omitted (or perhaps even censored), or was added from a marginal gloss. Fortunately, major variants tend to be easier to correct. Examples of major variants are the endings of Mark, the Pericope Adulteræ, the Comma Johanneum, and the Western version of Acts.
Early manuscripts of the letters
of Paul and other New Testament writings show no punctuation
whatsoever. The punctuation was added later by other editors,
according to their own understanding of the text.
Modern Christian
translations of the Bible (1800–)
Many attempts have been made to
translate the Bible into modern English, which is defined as the form
of English in use after 1800 (different from the linguistic usage of
modern English). Since the early nineteenth century, there have been
several translational responses to the rapid spread of Christianity
throughout the world. Various denominational and organizational goals
have produced, and continue to produce, Bibles to address the needs
of English speakers from all walks of life. Differing base texts,
theological emphasis, style, and translation aims (e.g. readability
vs. literality) are just a few of the variables that contribute to
the wide range of Bibles available today.
Modern Jewish
translations of the Bible (1853–) Jewish English Bible translations are English translations of the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible) according to the masoretic text, in the traditional division and order of Torah, Nevi'im, and Ketuvim. Most Jewish translations appear in bilingual editions (Hebrew–English).
Jewish translations often reflect
traditional Jewish exegesis of the Bible; all such translations
eschew the Christological interpretations present in many non-Jewish
translations. Jewish translations contain neither the books of the apocrypha
nor the Christian New Testament.
English translations of the Bible
The efforts of translating the
Bible from its original languages into over 2,000 others have spanned
more than two millennia. Partial translations of the Bible into
languages of the English people can be traced back to the end
of the 7th century, including translations into Old English and
Middle English. Over 450 versions have been created over time.
Old English Bible
translations (pre-1066) A number of Old English Bible translations (pre 1066) were prepared in medieval England, rendering parts of the Bible into the Old English language.
Many of these translations were in
fact glosses, prepared and circulated in connection with the Latin
Bible — the Vulgate — that was standard in Western
Christianity at the time, for the purpose of assisting clerics whose
grasp of Latin was imperfect. Old English literature is remarkable
for containing a number of incomplete Bible translations that were
not glosses and that were meant to be circulated independently.
Known translations
The Lord's Prayer — Suae ðonne iuih gie bidde fader urer ðu arð ðu bist in heofnum & in heofnas; sie gehalgad noma ðin; to-cymeð ric ðin. sie willo ðin suae is in heofne & in eorðo. hlaf userne oferwistlic sel us to dæg. & forgef us scylda usra suae uoe forgefon scyldgum usum. & ne inlæd usih in costunge ah gefrig usich from yfle
Fæder ure þu þe eart on heofonum, si þin nama gehalgod. To becume þin rice, gewurþe ðin willa, on eorðan swa swa on heofonum. Urne gedæghwamlican hlaf syle us todæg, and forgyf us ure gyltas, swa swa we forgyfað urum gyltendum. And ne gelæd þu us on costnunge, ac alys us of yfele. Soþlice.
In 1066, the Norman Conquest of
England marked the beginning of the end of the Old English language
and initiated profound changes in its vocabulary. The project of
translating the Bible into Old English gradually ended after that
process began. A period of change from Old English to Middle English
began (though evidence is very scanty), and eventually there were
attempts to provide Bible translations in that language.
Middle English Bible translations (1066–1500) Middle English Bible translations (1066-1500) covers the age of Middle English, beginning with the Norman conquest and ending about 1500. Aside from Wycliffe's Bible, this was not a fertile time for Bible translation. English literature was limited because French was the preferred language of the elite, and Latin was the preferred literary language in Medieval Western Europe.
There were several dialects of
Middle English, and it was not considered a written language before
the time of Chaucer. 14th century (1301 - 1400) 16th-17th century (1501 to 1600 - 1601 to 1700) Tyndale · Coverdale · Matthew · Great Bible · Taverner · Geneva · Bishops' (1534) · Douay-Rheims · Authorized King James · The Bishop's Bible (1568)
8th-19th century (1701 to 1800 - 1801–1900)
Early partial translations
of the Bible The Ormulum, produced by the Augustinian monk Orm of Lincolnshire around 1150, includes partial translations of the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles from Latin into the dialect of East Midland. The manuscript is written in the poetic meter iambic septenarius. Translations of many biblical passages are included in the Cursor Mundi, written about 1300. Richard Rolle of Hampole (or de Hampole) was an Oxford-educated hermit and writer of religious texts. In the early 14th century, he produced English glosses of Latin Bible text, including the Psalms. Rolle translated the Psalms into a Northern English dialect, but later copies were written in Southern English dialects. Around the same time, an anonymous author in the West Midlands region produced another gloss of the Psalms — the West Midland Psalms.
In the early years of the 14th
century, a French copy of the Book of Revelation was anonymously
translated into English.
Wycliffe's Bible In the late 14th century, John Wycliffe produced the first complete English language Bible — often called Wycliffe's Bible. His New Testament was completed in 1380 and the Old Testament a few years later. It is thought that a large portion of the Old Testament was actually translated by Nicholas Hereford. Some 30 copies of this Bible survive, despite the fact that it was banned. From the time of King Richard II until the time of the English Reformation, Lollards who read Wycliffe's Bible were persecuted. Wycliffe's Bible was revised in the last years of the 14th century, perhaps by John Purvey. This edition was also banned and became even more popular than the first. Some 130 copies exist, including some belonging to the British royal family. All dated copies are dated before the ban. Sample of Wycliffe's translation: “Be not youre herte affraied, ne drede it. Ye bileuen in god, and bileue ye in me. In the hous of my fadir ben many dwellyngis: if ony thing lasse I hadde seid to you, for I go to make redi to you a place. And if I go and make redi to you a place, eftsone I come and I schal take you to my silf, that where I am, ye be. And whidir I go ye witen: and ye witen the wey.” (John 14:1-4) Since the Wycliffe Bible conformed fully to Catholic teaching, it was mistakenly thought to be an unauthorized Roman Catholic version of the New Testament. This view was held by many Catholic commentators, including Thomas More. See Wycliffe's Bible
Later partial translations
William Caxton translated
many Bible stories and passages from the French, producing the Golden
Legend (1483) and The Book of the Knight in the Tower (1484). He also
printed The Mirror of the Blessed Life of Jesus Christ by
Pseudo-Bonaventure, translated by Nicholas Love, OCart.
Legacy of
Bible translations All translations of this time period were from Latin or French. Greek and Hebrew texts would become available with the development of the Johann Gutenberg's movable-type printing press which coincided with the development of Early Modern English, making English a literary language, and would lead to a great increase in the number of translations of the Bible in the Early Modern English era. In the century just after Wycliffe's translation, two great events occurred which bore heavily on the spread of the Bible. One was the revival of learning, which made popular again the study of the classics and the classical languages. Critical and exact Greek scholarship became again a possibility. Under the influence of Erasmus and his kind, with their new insistence on classical learning, there came necessarily a new appraisal of the Vulgate as a translation of the original Bible. For a thousand years there had been little new study of the original Biblical languages in Europe. The Latin of the Vulgate was regarded nearly as sacred as was the Bible itself. But the revival of learning threw scholarship into debate regarding the sources of the text. The Catholic Church promoted, then as now, the Codex Vaticanus Graecus 1209, but Erasmus regarded it as corrupt and Dean Burgon in the 1880s showed exactly why listing the thousands of corruptions in his research book, The Revision Revised. However during the 20th Century there were more than one hundred English translations, and they were all based heavily on the Vaticanus Greek text in opposition to the New Testament Greek text that Erasmus viewed as pure and traditional. In the early 16th century Erasmus published a single volume of the Greek texts of the New Testament books, and republished more precise editions of this volume until his death. He used only a few Greek manuscripts since in his view some Greek texts were more corrupted than others and demonstrated many changes by comparison with the traditionally received Greek N.T. texts. After decades of travel, writings, correspondence and studies to better prepare and present a worthy challenger to the Vulgate he had spent his life becoming the world's best textual critic. Since Erasmus was a world renowned scholar of his day as well as the chief reviser of the Latin Vulgate, other competing texts of the Greek Testament were not widely received and Erasmus's work was viewed as authoritative. Erasmus life work of commentating and eventually re-writing a Latin New Testament (prior to publishing the one volume Greek New Testament) disturbed the Vulgate's position as a final version. Erasmus did not want versions in the first place for serious study. He presented the Greek New Testament to the world so as to give a standard for all Bible students and teachers lest another version of the Bible (in other languages like Latin) would arise and seem to have similar if not equal authority to the traditional Greek New Testament manuscripts.
The other great event of
that same century was the invention of printing with movable type. It
was in 1455 that Johannes Gutenberg printed his first major work, an
edition of the Latin Vulgate, now called the Mazarin Bible. These
developments would lead to the more fertile time for English
translations in the Early Modern English period.
Early Modern English Bible translations (1500–1800) Early Modern English Bible translations are those translations of the Bible which were made between about 1500 and 1800, the period of Early Modern English. This was the first major period of Bible translation into the English language including the King James Version and Douai Bibles. The Reformation and Counter-Reformation led to the need for Bibles in the vernacular with competing groups each producing their own versions. Although Wycliffe's Bible had preceded the Protestant Reformation, England was actually one of the last countries in Europe to have a printed vernacular Bible. There were several reasons for this. One was that Henry VIII wanted to avoid the propagation of heresies—a concern subsequently justified by the marginal notes printed in Tyndale's New Testament and the Geneva Bible, for example. Another was the Roman Catholic doctrine of Magisterium which describes the Church as the final authority in the interpretation of the Scriptures; in the volatile years of the Reformation, it was not felt that encouraging private Scriptural interpretation, and thereby possible heresy, would be helpful. Several of the early printed English Bibles were suppressed, at least temporarily. Henry VIII complained about Tyndale's "pestilent glosses", and only tolerated the Coverdale and Matthew Bibles because the publishers carefully omitted any mention of Tyndale's involvement in them. Later, the "authorized"Great Bible of 1539 was suppressed under Mary I because of her Roman Catholic beliefs. Process of publication of Bible translations In this period, between about 1500 and 1800, the roles of printer and publisher were not necessarily as now, and the accuracy of the information given on title pages cannot be relied on. The person named as translator might at most be an editor, since all Bible versions depended heavily on Tyndale's and/or Coverdale's work. Printers and others involved in the publication sometimes worked under pseudonyms. Dates and places of publication might also be given incorrectly. Identification of a particular Bible as belonging to a specific edition is complicated by the flexibility of the whole production process at the time. The text, being set in movable type, could be corrected or changed in the middle of a print run; thus copies of a given edition may differ on some pages. Also, at the binding stage, a title page from one edition might be combined with text from another edition. The exact origins of a Bible can therefore only be determined by detailed examination of the text. Print runs for early Bibles were relatively short by present-day standards; typically perhaps 1000 to 2500 copies. Editions printed in England required a royal licence. Later the printing of Bibles in England became a monopoly shared between the Oxford University Press, the Cambridge University Press and the "King's Printers". This situation continued into the 20th century, at which time Eyre and Spottiswoode were the King's Printers.
Printers' errors inevitably
escaped detection in some editions. Perhaps the most famous faulty
edition is the so-called "Wicked Bible", a 1631 printing of
the King James version (Herbert #444) in which Exod. 20:14 read:
"Thou shalt commit adultery."For this the printer, Robert
Barker, was fined heavily. Of the 1000 copies of the "Wicked
Bible"only 11 survive. Versions of Bible translations The nine versions summarized below are dealt with in separate articles. With the exception of Tyndale’s Bible, all are complete Bibles, although usually the New Testament was also issued separately. The Apocrypha were normally included in Bibles of the Reformation period, although sometimes omitted if the book was subsequently re-bound. Psalters and prayer-books were often bound with the Bible.
In addition, there are a
number of other translations of individual books. For example, George
Joye's Protestant translations of the Psalms (1530), Isaiah (1531),
Proverbs (1533), Ecclesiastes (1533), Jeremiah (1534) and
Lamentations (1534), all executed in Antwerp, were the first printed
English translations of these biblical books. Tyndale's Bible of Bible translations William Tyndale was the first figure in this period. Tyndale was a priest who graduated at Oxford, was a student in Cambridge when Martin Luther posted his theses at Wittenberg and was troubled by the problems within the Church. In 1523, taking advantage of the recent invention of the printing press, Tyndale began to cast the Scriptures into English. His aims were simple but ambitious (as expressed to an educated man): "I defy the Pope and all his laws: and if God spare my life, ere many years I will cause a boy that driveth the plough shall know more of the Scriptures than thou dost."Within his lifetime, only his New Testament and part of his Old Testament were published. He set out to London fully expecting to find support and encouragement there, but he found neither. He found, as he once said, that there was no room in the palace of the Bishop of London to translate the New Testament; indeed, that there was no place to do it in all England. A wealthy London merchant subsidized him with the gift of ten pounds, with which he went across the Channel to Hamburg; and there and elsewhere on the Continent, where he could be hid and where printing facilities were more accessible than in England, he brought his translation to completion. Tyndale was compelled to flee at one time with a few printed sheets and complete his work on another press. Several times copies of his books were solemnly burned, and his own life was frequently in danger; he was eventually executed for his work. The Church had objected to Tyndale's translations because offensive notes (the "pestilent glosses") and, in their belief, deliberate mistranslations had been included in the works in order to promote anticlericalism and heretical views. It is for this reason that Tyndale's earliest editions were so vigorously suppressed that few copies have survived. There is one story that tells how money came to free Tyndale from heavy debt and prepare the way for more Bibles. The Bishop of London, Cuthbert Tunstall, was set on destroying copies of the English New Testament. He therefore made a bargain with a merchant of Antwerp, to secure them for him. The merchant was a friend of Tyndale, and went to him to tell him he had a customer for his Bibles, The Bishop of London. Tyndale agreed to give the merchant the Bibles to pay his debt and finance new editions of the Bible. Ironically, Tyndale's was perhaps the most influential single translation of the Bible ever made into English. Several immediately subsequent publications, among them the Matthews and Great Bibles, relied heavily on Tyndale's wording while softening his radical Protestantism. The King James New Testament is reckoned to be nearly 90% Tyndale, with about one-third being verbatim Tyndale. A similar figure applies to the parts of the Old Testament that Tyndale translated. See also Tyndale Bible Bishops' Bible (1534) of Bible translations Not to be confused with the translation of 1568 commonly known as the Bishops' Bible. Henry VIII remained implacably hostile to Tyndale's bible - both because of Tyndale's preference for non-ecclesiastical vocabulary, and also on account of his attacks on Henry's divorce from Catherine of Aragon - and in 1530 Tyndale's New Testament was officially condemned, with the explicit intention that other learned and catholic persons should be engaged to do the job properly. However, in the absence of an acceptable alternative, it proved very difficult to prevent Tyndale's New Testament from circulating in secret. In 1534, therefore, Thomas Cranmer initiated a programme to produce a rival, officially authorised, English New Testament; dividing up the task of translation between ten diocesan bishops. No part of this version survives, but it appears to have consisted of a thorough revision of Tyndale towards much more consistency with the Vulgate text. Stephen Gardiner reported to Thomas Cromwell that he had completed his allocated part (the Gospels of Luke and John) in June 1535, but other bishops missed their deadlines, while John Stokesley refused to undertake his own allocation (the Acts of the Apostles) on principle. By 1537, Cranmer commented to Thomas Cromwell that the bishops could not be expected to complete their work till "the day after Doomsday"; and that accordingly some other means would need to be employed to respond to the King's stated wishes. Coverdale's Bible of Bible translations The first complete printed translation into English, and the first complete translation into Modern English, was compiled by Myles Coverdale and published in 1535. It was much influenced by Tyndale: Coverdale took Tyndale's New Testament and the published portions of his Old Testament, and translated the remainder of the Old Testament himself from Latin and German versions. See also Coverdale Bible Matthew's Bible of Bible translations Matthew's Bible was produced by John Rodgers, working under the pseudonym "Thomas Matthew"for safety, in 1537. It was based on Tyndale's previously published editions with the addition of his unpublished Old Testament material. The remainder used Coverdale's translation. It received the approval of Henry VIII. See also Matthew Bible Taverner's Bible of Bible translations
Taverner's
Bible is a minor revision of Matthew's Bible edited by Richard
Taverner and published in 1539. The Great Bible: the first "authorized version" of Bible translations There appeared what is known as the Great Bible in 1539, also compiled by Myles Coverdale. The Great Bible was issued to meet a decree that each church should make available in some convenient place the largest possible copy of the whole Bible, where all the parishioners could have access to it and read it at their will. The version gets its name from the size of the volume. That decree dates 1538, twelve years after Tyndale's books were burned, and two years after he was burned. The installation of these great books caused tremendous excitement as crowds gathered everywhere. Bishop Bonner had six copies of the great volume located throughout St. Paul's. The Great Bible appeared in seven editions in two years, and continued in recognized power for thirty years. Much of the present English prayer-book is taken from it. But this liberty was so sudden that the people naturally abused it. King Henry VIII became vexed because the sacred words "were disputed, rimed, sung, and jangled in every ale-house". King Henry began to put restrictions on the use of the Bible. There were to be no notes or annotations in any versions, and those that existed were to be blacked out. Only the upper classes were to be allowed to possess a Bible. Finally, the year before his death, all versions were again prohibited except the Great Bible, whose cost and size precluded personal use. The decree led to another great burning of Bibles in 1546—Tyndale, Coverdale, Matthew—all but the Great Bible. The leading religious reformers took flight and fled to European Protestant towns like Frankfurt and Strassburg. Under Edward VI, the regency cast off all restrictions on translation and publication of the Bible; all the suppressed versions were republished. The order for a Great Bible in every church was renewed, and there was to be added to it a copy of Erasmus's paraphrase of the four gospels, in an English translation undertaken in part by Princess Mary, the King's Catholic sister. Nearly fifty editions of the Bible, in whole or in part, appeared in those six years. When Mary herself succeeded to the throne in 1553, she maintained her brother's policy of encouraging public reading of the Great Bible and Paraphrases; but versions with overtly Protestant notes were once again liable to be burned. See also Great Bible The Geneva Bible of Bible translations Queen Mary sought to restore the Church of England to allegiance to Rome. The secret use of Protestant translations of the Bible began again, despite official efforts to restore England to Roman Catholic unity. The only Bible translation published during Mary's reign was the "Whittingham New Testament"of 1557 printed in Geneva (Herbert #106). English scholarship was driven into exile, and found its way to Frankfurt and Geneva again. There the spirit of scholarship was untrammeled. They found material for scholarly study of the Bible, and there they made and published a new version of the Bible in English, the Geneva Bible. During Elizabeth's reign sixty editions of it appeared. The Geneva Bible was first published in 1560 (Herbert #107). It made several changes: for one, the Geneva edition was the first to show the division into verses. The chapter division was made three centuries earlier, but the verses belong to the Genevan version, and are meant to make the book suitable for responsive use and for readier reference. They were taken in large part from the work of Stephanus (Robert Estienne of Paris), who had divided the Greek Testament into verses in 1551, during a journey which he was compelled to make between Paris and Lyon. The Geneva version was printed both in Roman type and in the older typeface, black letter. It had full "notes on hard passages", some of which eventually proved controversial to King James and were thus a prompt to a new translation; the King James version. The work itself was completed after the accession of Elizabeth, when most of the religious leaders had returned to England from their exile under Mary. The Geneva Bible was compiled by William Whittingham, who had succeeded John Knox as pastor of the English congregation at Geneva, Switzerland. Whittingham was married to John Calvin's sister, and the translation was viewed as too Calvinist by the Church. See also Geneva Bible The Bishops' Bible of Bible translations Not to be confused with the translation of 1534 commonly known as Bishops' Bible. During the reign of Elizabeth I of England it was found that two versions of the Bible were in common use, the old Great Bible and the new Geneva Bible. There could be no way of gaining approval for the Geneva Bible. For one thing, John Knox had been a party to its preparation; so had Calvin. The Queen and many of the bishops detested them both, especially Knox. For another thing, its notes were not favorable to royal sovereignty. Finally, it had been made in a foreign land, and was under suspicion on that account. The result was that Elizabeth's archbishop of Canterbury, Matthew Parker, set out to have another official version made. He selected a revision committee, with instructions to follow closely wherever possible the Great Bible, to avoid contentious notes, and to make such a version that it might be freely, easily, and naturally read. The result is known as the Bishops' Bible. It was issued in Elizabeth's tenth year (1568), but there is no record that she ever noticed it, though Parker sent her a copy from his sick-bed. Its publication (as complete Bibles) ceased before the first issue of the new official (though not formally "authorized") version, the King James version of 1611. See also Bishops' Bible The Douay-Rheims Version of Bible translations The Douai (or Douay) version was the work of English Roman Catholic scholars connected with the University of Douai in France. The New Testament was issued at Rheims in 1582, and the Old Testament in two volumes, in 1609 and 1610, just before the King James version. It is made, not from the Hebrew and the Greek, though it refers to both, but from the Vulgate. The result is that the Old Testament of the Douai version is a translation into English from the Latin, which in turn is, mostly, a translation from the Hebrew. Yet scholars are scholars, and it shows some influence of the Genevan version; and, indeed, of other English versions, especially that of Myles Coverdale. Its notes were strongly anti-Protestant, and in its preface it explains its existence by saying that Protestants have been guilty of "casting the holy to dogs and pearls to hogs."
The version's English was
not colloquial, but ecclesiastical and highly latinate. In Hebrews
13:17, the version reads, "Obey your prelates and be subject
unto them."In Luke 3:3, John came "preaching the baptism of
penance."In Psalm xxiii:5, where the King James Version reads,
"My cup runneth over,"the Douai version, taking its cue
from the Greek Septuagint, reads, "My chalice which inebriateth
me, how goodly it is."There is a retention of ecclesiastical
terms, and an explanation of the passages on which Protestants tended
to differ rather sharply from Roman Catholics, as in the matter of
the taking of the cup by the people, and elsewhere. In 1589, the
Protestant scholar William Fulke issued a point by point refutation
of the notes of the Rheims New Testament, in which he also printed
the biblical text both of Rheims and of the Bishop's Bible in
parallel columns. This work which sold very widely and had the
consequence of making the Rheims New Testament much more accessible
than would otherwise have been the case. See Challoner Bible Here See also Douay-Rheims Bible Authorized King James Bible of Bible translations The King James Version (KJV), or Authorized Version is an English translation of the Holy Bible, commissioned for the benefit of the Church of England at the behest of James I of England. First published in 1611, it has had a profound impact not only on most English translations that have followed it, but also on English literature as a whole. The King James Version was first published in 1611 as a complete Bible (Herbert #309) and a New Testament (Herbert #310). Translated by the largest group of translators, around 50, and using the widest range of source texts, it became known as the "Authorized Version"in England and is the most widely used of the Early Modern English Bible translations. Its use has continued in some traditions up to the present. Even though modern scholarship continues to claim problems with some of the translation, it is widely admired for its style and use of language. The version of the King James Bible found in modern printings is not that of the 1611 edition, but rather an edition extensively modernised in 1769 (to the standards of the mid-18th Century) by Benjamin Blayney for the Oxford University Press. A sample of the King James - as updated by Blayney - shows the similarity to modern English: Our father which art in heaven, hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. Amen. See also Authorized King James Version Miscellaneous English Bible translations A broader list of English Bible translations is at Modern English Bible translations. These are other translation projects which are worthy of note which are not easily classified in the other groups:
Modern English Bible translations Many attempts have been made to translate the Bible into modern English, which is defined as the form of English in use after 1800 (different from the linguistic usage of modern English). Since the early nineteenth century, there have been several translational responses to the rapid spread of Christianity throughout the world. Various denominational and organizational goals have produced, and continue to produce, Bibles to address the needs of English speakers from all walks of life. Differing base texts, theological emphasis, style, and translation aims (e.g. readability vs. literality) are just a few of the variables that contribute to the wide range of Bibles available today. 18th-19th century (1701 to 1800 - 1801–1900)
Challoner · Young's
Literal · Darby · Joseph
Smith · Quaker · Wesley's
New Testament · Thomson's
Translation · Webster's Revision
· Julia E. Smith Parker Translation
· Revised Version 20th century (1901 to 2000)
American Standard · Rotherham's
Emphasized · Revised Standard
· New World · New
English Bible · New
American Standard · Good News
· Jerusalem · New
American · Living · New
International · New Century
· New King James · New
Jerusalem · Recovery
· New Revised Standard
· Revised English · Contemporary
English · The Message · Clear
Word · Knox · New
International Reader's Version · New
International Inclusive Language Edition · New
Living · International Standard
· Holman Christian Standard 21st century (2001 to 2100)
World English · English
Standard · Today's New International
· New English Translation
· Orthodox Study Bible
· 21st Century King
James Version The next age of Bible translations With new standards of scholarship, increasing fragmentation of Christian communities, and discovery of more ancient sources, Modern English Bible translations have proliferated in the Modern English age to a degree never before seen. Christian Biblical Canons For the Jewish canon, see Development of the Hebrew Bible canon. For the Old Testament canon, see Development of the Old Testament canon. For the New Testament canon, see Development of the New Testament canon.
A Christian biblical canon is the set of books that a Christian denomination regards as divinely inspired and thus constituting a Christian Bible. Although the Early Church primarily used the Septuagint (the Greek Old Testament, or LXX) or the Targums among Aramaic speakers, the apostles did not leave a defined set of new scriptures; instead the canon of the New Testament developed over time. Like the development of the Old Testament canon, that of the New Testament canon was gradual. The Catholic Encyclopedia article on the New Testament describes the process of assembling the histories and letters circulated within the early Church until the canon was approved by a series of councils seeking to ensure legitimacy as inspired scripture: The idea of a complete and clear-cut canon of the New Testament existing from the beginning, that is from Apostolic times, has no foundation in history. The Canon of the New Testament, like that of the Old, is the result of a development, of a process at once stimulated by disputes with doubters, both within and without the Church, and retarded by certain obscurities and natural hesitations, and which did not reach its final term until the dogmatic definition of the Tridentine Council. Contents of Christian Biblical Canons
* 1 Fifty Bibles of Constantine * 2 The Vulgate Bible * 3 Augustine and the North African canons * 4 A consensus emerges * 5 Eastern canons o 5.1 Peshitta o 5.2 Armenian canon o 5.3 East African canons * 6 Reformation era o 6.1 Martin Luther o 6.2 Council of Trent o 6.3 Protestant confessions o 6.4 Synod of Jerusalem * 7 Apocrypha * 8 Modern canons * 9 References * 10 External links
Fifty Bibles of Constantine The Fifty Bibles of Constantine were Bibles in Greek language commissioned in 331 by Constantine I and prepared by Eusebius of Caesarea. They were made for the use of the Bishop of Constantinople in the growing number of churches in that very new city. Eusebius quoted the letter of commission in his Life of Constantine, and it is the only surviving source from which we know of the existence of the Bibles. In 331, Constantine I commissioned Eusebius to deliver fifty Bibles for the Church of Constantinople. Athanasius recorded Alexandrian scribes around 340 preparing Bibles for Constans. Little else is known, though there is plenty of speculation. For example, it is speculated that this may have provided motivation for canon lists, and that Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus are examples of these Bibles. Together with the Peshitta and Codex Alexandrinus, these are the earliest extant Christian Bibles. There is no evidence among the canons of the First Council of Nicaea of any determination on the canon, however, Jerome (347-420), in his Prologue to Judith, makes the claim that the Book of Judith was "found by the Nicene Council to have been counted among the number of the Sacred Scriptures".
Biblical Canon It is speculated that this commission may have provided motivation for the development of the canon lists and that Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus are possible surviving examples of these Bibles. There is no evidence among the records of the First Council of Nicaea of any determination on the canon; however, Jerome, in his Prologue to Judith, makes the claim that the Book of Judith was "found by the Nicene Council to have been counted among the number of the Sacred Scriptures". Requisition of The Fifty Bibles of Constantine According to Eusebius, Constantine I wrote him in his letter: I have thought it expedient to instruct your Prudence to order fifty copies of the sacred Scriptures, the provision and use of which you know to be most needful for the instruction of the Church, to be written on prepared parchment in a legible manner, and in a convenient, portable form, by professional transcribers thoroughly practised in their art. About accomplishing the Emperor's demand: Such were the emperor's commands, which were followed by the immediate execution of the work itself, which we sent him in magnificent and elaborately bound volumes of a threefold and fourfold form. This is the usual way in which Eusebius' text is translated, but there are more possibilities, because the phrase has many meanings:
Athanasius of Alexandria referred to another request of producing Bible manuscripts: "I sent to him volumes containing the holy Scriptures, which he had ordered me to prepare for him." Athanasius could have received this request between 337-339.
Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus Constantin von Tischendorf, discoverer of Codex Sinaiticus, believed that Sinaiticus and Vaticanus were among these fifty Bibles prepared by Eusebius in Caesarea. According to him, they were written with three (as Vaticanus) or four columns per page (as Sinaiticus). Tishendorf's view was supported by Pierre Batiffol. Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener rejected Tischendorf's speculation because of differences between the two manuscripts. In Sinaiticus, the text of the Gospels is divided according to the Ammonian Sections with references to the Eusebian Canons, but Vaticanus used the older system of division. Vaticanus was prepared in a format of 5 folios in one quire, but Sinaiticus had 8 folios. According to Scrivener, Eusebian Bibles contained three or four folios per quire (Scrivener used a Latin version of Valesius). Scrivener stated that the Eusebian is unclear and should not be used for a doubtful theory. Westcott and Hort argued the order of biblical books on the Eusebian list of the canonical books, quoted by Eusebius in "Ecclesiastical History" (III, 25), is different from every surviving manuscript. Probably none of the 50 copies survive today. Caspar René Gregory believed that Vaticanus and Sinaiticus were written in Caesarea, and they could belong to the Eusebian fifty. According to Victor Gardthausen Sinaiticus is younger than Vaticanus by at least 50 years. According to Heinrich Schumacher, Eusebius instead prepared fifty lectionaries, not Bibles. Skeat believed that Vaticanus was rejected by the emperor, for it is deficient in the Eusebia canon tables, contains many corrections (made in scriptorium), and lacks the books of Maccabees.
Kurt Aland, Bruce M. Metzger, Bart
D. Ehrman doubt that Sinaiticus and Vaticanus were copied by Eusebius
on the Constantine order. The Vulgate Bible The Vulgate is a late fourth-century Latin translation of the Bible that became, during the 16th century, the Catholic Church's officially promulgated Latin version of the Bible. The translation was largely the work of St. Jerome, who, in 382, was commissioned by Pope Damasus I to revise the Vetus Latina ("Old Latin") collection of Biblical texts in Latin then in use by the Church. Once published, it was widely adopted and eventually eclipsed the Vetus Latina and, by the 13th century, was known as the "versio vulgata" (the "version commonly-used") or, more simply, in Latin as vulgata or in Greek as "Vulgate". It was made the Catholic Church's official Latin Bible as a consequence of the Council of Trent (1545–63). Pope Damasus's commissioning of the Latin Vulgate edition of the Bible, c. 383, was instrumental in the fixation of the canon in the West. Pope Damasus I is often considered to be the father of the modern Catholic canon. Purporting to date from a "Council of Rome" under Pope Damasus I in 382, the so-called "Damasian list" appended to the pseudepigraphical Decretum Gelasianum gives a list identical to what would be the Canon of Trent, and, though the text may in fact not be Damasian, it is at least a valuable sixth century compilation. This list, given below, was purportedly endorsed by Pope Damasus I: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Jesus Nave, Judges, Ruth, 4 books of Kings, 2 books of Chronicles, Job, Psalter of David, 5 books of Solomon, 12 books of Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, 2 books of Esdras, 2 books of Maccabees, and in the New Testament: 4 books of Gospels, 1 book of Acts of the Apostles, 13 letters of the Apostle Paul, 1 of him to the Hebrews, 2 of Peter, 3 of John, 1 of James, 1 of Jude, and the Apocalypse of John. "Jesus Nave" was an old name for the Book of Joshua. "2 books of Esdras" could be 1 Esdras and Ezra-Nehemiah as in the Septuagint or Ezra and Nehemiah as in the Vulgate. Authorship of The Vulgate Bible The Vulgate has a compound text that is not entirely the work of Jerome. Its components include:
Translation of The Vulgate Bible Jerome did not embark on the work with the intention of creating a new version of the whole Bible, but the changing nature of his program can be tracked in his voluminous correspondence. He had been commissioned by Damasus I in 382 to revise the Old Latin text of the four Gospels from the best Greek texts, and by the time of Damasus' death in 384 he had thoroughly completed this task, together with a more cursory revision from the Greek Septuagint of the Old Latin text of the Psalms in the Roman Psalter which is now lost. How much of the rest of the New Testament he then revised is difficult to judge today, but little of his work survived in the Vulgate text. In 385, Jerome was forced out of Rome, and eventually settled in Bethlehem, where he was able to use a surviving manuscript of the Hexapla, likely from the nearby Theological Library of Caesarea Maritima, a columnar comparison of the variant versions of the Old Testament undertaken 150 years before by Origen. Jerome first embarked on a revision of the Psalms, translated from the revised Septuagint Greek column of the Hexapla, which later came to be called the Gallican version. He also appears to have undertaken further new translations into Latin from the Hexaplar Septuagint column for other books. But from 390 to 405, Jerome translated anew from the Hebrew all 39 books in the Hebrew Bible, including a further version of the Psalms. This new translation of the Psalms was labelled by him as "iuxta Hebraeos" (i.e. "close to the Hebrews", "immediately following the Hebrews"), and was commonly found in the Vulgate, until it was widely replaced by his Gallican psalms beginning in the 9th century. The Vulgate is usually credited as being the first translation of the Old Testament into Latin directly from the Hebrew Tanakh, rather than the Greek Septuagint. Jerome's extensive use of exegetical material written in Greek, on the other hand, as well as his use of the Aquiline and Theodotiontic columns of the Hexapla, along with the somewhat paraphrastic style in which he translated makes it difficult to determine exactly how direct the conversion of Hebrew to Latin was. As Jerome completed his translations of each book of the Bible, he recorded his observations and comments in an extensive correspondence with other scholars; and these letters were subsequently collected and appended as prologues to the Vulgate text for those books where they survived. In these letters, Jerome described those books or portions of books in the Septuagint that were not found in the Hebrew as being non-canonical: he called them apocrypha. Jerome's views did not, however, prevail; and all complete manuscripts and editions of the Vulgate include some or all of these books. Of the Old Testament texts not found in the Hebrew, Jerome translated Tobit and Judith anew from the Aramaic; and from the Greek, the additions to Esther from the Septuagint, and the additions to Daniel from Theodotion. Other books; Baruch, Letter of Jeremiah, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, 1 and 2 Maccabees are variously found in Vulgate manuscripts with texts derived from the Old Latin; sometimes together with Latin versions of other texts found neither in the Hebrew Bible, nor in the Septuagint, 4 Esdras, the Prayer of Manasses and Laodiceans. Their style is still markedly distinguishable from Jerome's. In the Vulgate text, Jerome's translations from the Greek of the additions to Esther and Daniel are combined with his separate translations of these books from the Hebrew. Critical value of The Vulgate Bible In translating the 39 books of the Hebrew Bible, Jerome was relatively free in rendering their text into Latin, but it is possible to determine that the oldest surviving complete manuscripts of the Masoretic Text, which date from nearly 600 years after Jerome, nevertheless transmit a consonantal Hebrew text very close to that used by Jerome. Consequently, these books of the Vulgate – though of high literary quality – have little independent interest in text critical debate. Jerome translated the books of Judith and Tobit under sufferance, engaging a Jewish intermediary to render the Aramaic into oral Hebrew, for him then to paraphrase into Latin. Their textual value is small. The Vulgate Old Testament texts that were translated from the Greek – whether by Jerome himself, or preserving revised or unrevised Old Latin versions – are however early and important secondary witnesses to the Septuagint. Damasus had instructed Jerome to be conservative in his revision of the Old Latin Gospels, and it is possible to see Jerome's obedience to this injunction in the preservation in the Vulgate of variant Latin vocabulary for the same Greek terms. Hence, "high priest" is rendered princeps sacerdotum in Vulgate Matthew; as summus sacerdos in Vulgate Mark; and as pontifex in Vulgate John. Comparison of Jerome's Gospel texts with those in Old Latin witnesses, suggests that his revision was substantially concerned with redacting the expanded phraseology characteristic of the Western text-type, in accordance with Alexandrian, or possibly early Byzantine, witnesses. Given Jerome's conservative methods, and that manuscript evidence from outside Egypt at this early date is very rare; these Vulgate readings have considerable critical interest. More interesting still—because effectively untouched by Jerome —are the Vulgate books of the rest of the New Testament; which demonstrate rather more of supposed "Western" expansions, and otherwise transmit a very early Old Latin text. Most valuable of all from a text-critical perspective is the Vulgate text of the Apocalypse, a book where there is no clear majority text in the surviving Greek witnesses. Prologues of The Vulgate Bible In addition to the biblical text the Vulgate contains 17 prologues, 16 of which were written by Jerome. Jerome's prologues were written not so much as prologues than as cover letters to specific individuals to accompany copies of his translations. Because they were not intended for a general audience, some of his comments in them are quite cryptic. These prologues are to the Pentateuch, to Joshua, and to Kings, which is also called the Prologus Galeatus. Following these are prologues to Chronicles, Ezra, Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Gallican Psalms, Song of Songs, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, the minor prophets, the gospels, and the final prologue which is to the Pauline epistles and is better known as Primum quaeritur. Related to these are Jerome's Notes on the Rest of Esther and his Prologue to the Hebrew Psalms. In addition to Jerome's prologue to the Gallican version of the Psalms, which is commonly found in Vulgate manuscripts, his prologues also survive for the translations from the Hexaplar Septuagint of the books of Job, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs and Chronicles. A recurring theme of the Old Testament prologues is Jerome's preference for the Hebraica veritas (i.e., Hebrew truth) to the Septuagint, a preference which he defended from his detractors. He stated that the Hebrew text more clearly prefigures Christ than the Greek. Among the most remarkable of these prologues is the Prologus Galeatus, in which Jerome described an Old Testament canon of 22 books, which he found represented in the 22-letter Hebrew alphabet. Alternatively, he numbered the books as 24, which he described as the 24 elders in the Book of Revelation casting their crowns before the Lamb. Also of note is the Primum quaeritur, which defended the Pauline authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and compared Paul's ten letters to the churches with the ten commandments. The author of the Primum quaeritur is unknown. The editors of the Stuttgart Vulgate remark that this version of the epistles first became popular among the Pelagians. In addition to Primum quaeritur, many manuscripts contain brief notes to each of the epistles indicating where they were written, with notes about where the recipients dwelt. Adolf von Harnack, citing De Bruyne, argued that these notes were written by Marcion of Sinope or one of his followers. Translations of The Vulgate Bible Before the publication of Pius XII's Divino afflante Spiritu, the Vulgate was the source text used for many translations of the Bible into vernacular languages. In English, the interlinear translation of the Lindisfarne Gospels as well as other Old English Bible translations, the translation of John Wycliffe, the Douay-Rheims Bible, the Confraternity Bible, and Ronald Knox's translation were all made from the Vulgate.
Augustine and the North African Canons Augustine of Hippo declared without qualification that one is to "prefer those that are received by all Catholic Churches to those which some of them do not receive" (On Christian Doctrines 2.12). By "Catholic Churches" Augustine meant those who concurred in this judgment, since many Eastern Churches rejected some of the books Augustine upheld as universally received. In the same passage, Augustine asserted that these dissenting churches should be outweighed by the opinions of "the more numerous and weightier churches", which would include Eastern Churches, the prestige of which Augustine stated moved him to include the Book of Hebrews among the canonical writings, though he had reservation about its authorship. Augustine called three synods on canonicity: the Synod of Hippo in 393, the Synod of Carthage in 397, and another in Carthage in 419 AD. (M 237-8). Each of these reiterated the same Church law: "nothing shall be read in church under the name of the divine scriptures" except the Old Testament (arguably including the books later called Deuterocanonicals) and the canonical books of the New Testament. These decrees also declared by fiat that Epistle to the Hebrews was written by Paul, for a time ending all debate on the subject. The first council that accepted the present canon of the books of the New Testament may have been the Synod of Hippo Regius in North Africa (AD 393); the acts of this council, however, are lost. A brief summary of the acts was read at and accepted by the Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419. Revelation was added to the list in 419. These councils were convened under the authority of St. Augustine, who regarded the canon as already closed.
A Consensus Emerges The division of opinion over the canon was not over the core, but over the "fringe", and from the fourth century, there existed unanimity in the West concerning the New Testament canon (as it is today), and by the fifth century the East, with a few exceptions, had come to accept the Book of Revelation and thus had come into harmony on the matter of the canon, at least for the New Testament. This period marks the beginning of a more widely recognized canon, although the inclusion of some books was still debated: Epistle to Hebrews, James, 2 John, 3 John, 2 Peter, Jude and Revelation. Grounds for debate included the question of authorship of these books (note that the so-called Damasian "Council at Rome" had already rejected John the Apostle's authorship of 2 and 3 John, while retaining the books), their suitability for use (Revelation at that time was already being interpreted in a wide variety of heretical ways), and how widely they were actually being used (2 Peter being amongst the most weakly attested of all the books in the Christian canon). Christian scholars assert that when these bishops and councils spoke on the matter, however, they were not defining something new, but instead "were ratifying what had already become the mind of the Church".
Eastern Canons The Eastern Churches had, in general, a weaker feeling than those in the West for the necessity of making a sharp delineation with regard to the canon. They were more conscious of the gradation of spiritual quality among the books that they accepted (e.g. the classification of Eusebius, see also Antilegomena) and were less often disposed to assert that the books which they rejected possessed no spiritual quality at all. For example, the Trullan Synod of 691–692, which was rejected by Pope Constantine (see also Pentarchy), endorsed the following lists of canonical writings: the Apostolic Canons (c. 385), the Synod of Laodicea (c. 363), the Third Synod of Carthage (c. 397), and the 39th Festal Letter of Athanasius (367). And yet, these lists do not agree. The Synod of Hippo Regius (AD 393) and the Synod of Carthage (AD 419) also addressed the canon and are discussed here. Similarly, the New Testament canons of the Syriac, Armenian, Georgian, Egyptian Coptic and Ethiopian Churches all have minor differences. The Revelation of John is one of the most uncertain books; it was not translated into Georgian until the 10th century, and it has never been included in the official lectionary of the Eastern Orthodox Church, whether in Byzantine or modern times.
Peshitta The late-5th or early-6th century Peshitta of the Syrian Orthodox Church includes a 22-book NT, excluding II Peter, II John, III John, Jude, and Revelation. (The Lee Peshitta of 1823 follows the Protestant canon) McDonald & Sanders, Appendix D-2, lists the following Syrian catalogue of St. Catherine's, c.400: “ Gospels (4): Matt, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Gal, Rom, Heb, Col, Eph, Phil, 1-2 Thess, 1-2 Tim, Titus, Phlm. ” The Syriac Peshitta, used by all the various Syrian Churches, originally did not include 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude and Revelation (and this canon of 22-books is the one cited by John Chrysostom (~347–407) and Theodoret (393–466) from the School of Antioch). It also includes Psalm 151 and Psalm 152–155 and 2 Baruch. Western Syrians have added the remaining 5 books to their NT canons in modern times (such as the Lee Peshitta of 1823). Today, the official lectionaries followed by the Malankara Syrian Orthodox Church, with headquarters at Kottayam (India), and the Chaldean Syrian Church, also known as the Church of the East (Nestorian), with headquarters at Trichur (India), still present lessons from only the 22-books of the original Peshitta.
Armenian Canon The Armenian Bible introduces one addition: a third letter to the Corinthians, also found in the Acts of Paul, which became canonized in the Armenian Church, but is not part of the Armenian Bible today. Revelation, however, was not accepted into the Armenian Bible until c. 1200 AD. when Archbishop Nerses arranged an Armenian Synod at Constantinople to introduce the text. Still, there were unsuccessful attempts even as late as 1290 AD to include in the Armenian canon several apocryphal books: Advice of the Mother of God to the Apostles, the Books of Criapos, and the ever-popular Epistle of Barnabas. The Armenian Apostolic church at times has included the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs in its Old Testament and the Third Epistle to the Corinthians, but does not always list it with the other 27 canonical New Testament books.
East African Canons
Reformation Era Before the Protestant Reformation, there was the Council of Florence (1439-1443). During the life, and with the approval of this council, Eugenius IV issued several Bulls, or decrees, with a view to restore the Oriental schismatic bodies to communion with Rome, and according to the common teaching of theologians these documents are infallible statements of doctrine. The "Decretum pro Jacobitis" contains a complete list of the books received by the Church as inspired, but omits, perhaps advisedly, the terms canon and canonical. The Council of Florence therefore taught the inspiration of all the Scriptures, but did not formally pass on their canonicity. It was not until the Protestant Reformers began to insist upon the supreme authority of Scripture alone (the doctrine of sola scriptura) that it became necessary to establish a definitive canon.
Martin Luther Luther's canon is the biblical canon attributed to Martin Luther, which has influenced Protestants since the 16th-century Protestant Reformation. While the Lutheran Confessions specifically did not define a canon, it is widely regarded as the canon of the Lutheran Church. It differs from the 1546 Roman Catholic canon of the Council of Trent in that it rejects the Deuterocanon and questions the seven New Testament books, called "Luther's Antilegomena", four of which are still ordered last in German-language Luther Bibles to this day. Martin Luther was troubled by four New Testament books: Jude, James, Hebrews, and Revelation; and though he placed them in a secondary position relative to the rest, he did not exclude them. Martin Luther proposed removing these Antilegomena, the books of Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation from the canon, echoing the consensus of some Catholics, also labeled Christian Humanists — such as Cardinal Ximenez, Cardinal Cajetan, and Erasmus — and partially because they were perceived to go against certain Protestant doctrines such as sola gratia and sola fide, but this was not generally accepted among his followers. However, these books are ordered last in the German-language Luther Bible to this day. Luther also removed books and additions to books of the Old Testament that are not found in the Hebrew Masoretic Text and put them in a section which he labelled "Apocrypha", commonly known as the Biblical Apocrypha. Catholics call these books the Deuterocanonicals. Deuterocanonical Books of Martin Luther's Canon See also Deuterocanonical Books and Biblical Apocrypha
Luther eliminated the deuterocanonical books from the Catholic Old Testament, terming them "Apocrypha, that are books which are not considered equal to the Holy Scriptures, but are useful and good to read". He also argued unsuccessfully for the relocation of the Book of Esther from the canon to the Apocrypha, because without the deuterocanonical additions to the Book of Esther, the text of Esther never mentions God. As a result, Protestants and Catholics continue to use different canons, which differ both in respect to the Old Testament and in the concept of the Antilegomena of the New Testament. Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation[edit] Main article: Antilegomena Luther made an attempt to remove the books of Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation from the canon (notably, he perceived them to go against certain Protestant doctrines such as sola gratia and sola fide), but this was not generally accepted among his followers. However, these books are ordered last in the German-language Luther Bible to this day. "If Luther's negative view of these books were based only upon the fact that their canonicity was disputed in early times, 2 Peter might have been included among them, because this epistle was doubted more than any other in ancient times". However, the prefaces that Luther affixed to these four books makes it evident "that his low view of them was more due to his theological reservations than with any historical investigation of the canon". In his book Basic Theology, Charles Caldwell Ryrie countered the claim that Luther rejected the Book of James as being canonical. In his preface to the New Testament, Luther ascribed to several books of the New Testament different degrees of doctrinal value: "St. John's Gospel and his first Epistle, St. Paul's Epistles, especially those to the Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, and St. Peter's Epistle-these are the books which show to thee Christ, and teach everything that is necessary and blessed for thee to know, even if you were never to see or hear any other book of doctrine. Therefore, St. James' Epistle is a perfect straw-epistle compared with them, for it has in it nothing of an evangelic kind." Thus Luther was comparing (in his opinion) doctrinal value, not canonical validity. However, Ryrie's theory is countered by other biblical scholars, including William Barclay, who note that Luther stated plainly, if not bluntly: "I think highly of the epistle of James, and regard it as valuable although it was rejected in early days. It does not expound human doctrines, but lays much emphasis on God’s law. &ldots;I do not hold it to be of apostolic authorship." Sola fide doctrine[edit] Main article: Sola fide In The Protestant Spirit of Luther’s Version, Philip Schaff asserts that: The most important example of dogmatic influence in Luther’s version is the famous interpolation of the word alone in Rom. 3:28 (allein durch den Glauben), by which he intended to emphasize his solifidian doctrine of justification, on the plea that the German idiom required the insertion for the sake of clearness. But he thereby brought Paul into direct verbal conflict with James, who says (James 2:24), "by works a man is justified, and not only by faith" ("nicht durch den Glauben allein"). It is well known that Luther deemed it impossible to harmonize the two apostles in this article, and characterized the Epistle of James as an "epistle of straw," because it had no evangelical character ("keine evangelische Art"). Similar canons of the time[edit] In his book Canon of the New Testament, Bruce Metzger notes that in 1596 Jacob Lucius published a Bible at Hamburg which labeled Luther's four as "Apocrypha"; David Wolder the pastor of Hamburg's Church of St. Peter published in the same year a triglot Bible which labeled them as "non canonical"; J. Vogt published a Bible at Goslar in 1614 similar to Lucius'; Gustavus Adolphus of Stockholm in 1618 published a Bible with them labeled as "Apocr(yphal) New Testament." Protestant laity and clergy[edit] There is some evidence that the first decision to omit these books entirely from the Bible was made by Protestant laity rather than clergy. Bibles dating from shortly after the Reformation have been found whose tables of contents included the entire Roman Catholic canon, but which did not actually contain the disputed books, leading some historians to think that the workers at the printing presses took it upon themselves to omit them. However, Anglican and Lutheran Bibles usually still contained these books until the 20th century, while Calvinist Bibles did not. Several reasons are proposed for the omission of these books from the canon. One is the support for Catholic doctrines such as Purgatory and Prayer for the dead found in 2 Maccabees. Another is that the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1646, during the English Civil War, actually excluded them from the canon. Luther himself said he was following Jerome's teaching about the Veritas Hebraica. Modern Evangelical use[edit] Evangelicals tend not to accept the Septuagint as the inspired Hebrew Bible, though many of them recognize its wide use by Greek-speaking Jews in the first century. Many modern Protestants point to four "Criteria for Canonicity" to justify the books that have been included in the Old and New Testament, which are judged to have satisfied the following: 1. Apostolic Origin – attributed to and based on the preaching/teaching of the first-generation apostles (or their close companions). 2. Universal Acceptance – acknowledged by all major Christian communities in the ancient world (by the end of the fourth century). 3. Liturgical Use – read publicly when early Christian communities gathered for the Lord's Supper (their weekly worship services). 4. Consistent Message – containing a theological outlook similar or complementary to other accepted Christian writings.
Council of Trent[edit] Main article: Canon of Trent In light of Martin Luther's demands, the Council of Trent on April 8, 1546, by vote (24 yea, 15 nay, 16 abstain) approved the present Catholic Bible canon, which includes the Deuterocanonical Books, and thus confirming the same list as produced at the Council of Florence in 1442 and Augustine's 397-419 Councils of Carthage. The Old Testament books that had been rejected by Luther were later termed deuterocanonical, not indicating a lesser degree of inspiration, but a later time of final approval. Beyond these books, some editions of the Latin Vulgate include Psalm 151, the Prayer of Manasseh, 1 Esdras (called 3 Esdras), 2 Esdras (called 4 Esdras), and the Epistle to the Laodiceans in an appendix, styled "Apogryphi", (see also Biblical Apocrypha#Clementine Vulgate). In support of the inclusion of the 12 Deuterocanonical books in the canon, the Council of Trent pointed to the two regional councils which met under Augustine's leadership in Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage (397 and 419 AD). The bishops of Trent claimed these councils formally defined the canon as including these books. Protestant confessions[edit] See also: Protestant Bible Several Protestant confessions of faith identify the 27 books of the New Testament canon by name, including the French Confession of Faith (1559), the Belgic Confession (1561), and the Westminster Confession of Faith (1647). The Thirty-Nine Articles, issued by the Church of England in 1563, names the books of the Old Testament, but not the New Testament. The Belgic Confession and Westminster Confession named the 39 books in the Old Testament and expressly rejected the canonicity of any others. None of the Confessional statements issued by any Lutheran church includes an explicit list of canonical books. Synod of Jerusalem[edit] See also: Development of the Old Testament canon § Eastern Orthodox Canon The Synod of Jerusalem in 1672 decreed the Greek Orthodox Canon which is similar to the one decided by the Council of Trent. The Greek Orthodox generally consider Psalm 151 to be part of the Book of Psalms. Likewise, the "books of the Maccabees" are four in number, though 4 Maccabees is generally in an appendix, along with the Prayer of Manasseh. Also, there are two books of Esdras, for the Greeks these books are 1 Esdras and Ezra-Nehemiah, see Esdras#Differences in names for details. The Greek Orthodox generally consider the Septuagint to be divinely inspired. Apocrypha[edit] Various books that were never canonized by any church, but are known to have existed in antiquity, are similar to the New Testament and often claim apostolic authorship, are known as the New Testament apocrypha. Likewise, there are certain books similar to the Old Testament that Protestants, Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox agree should be excluded from the biblical canon. According to the "The SBL Handbook of Style" published by the Society of Biblical Literature, one should consider using the term "deuterocanonical literature" rather than "apocrypha" to refer to literature regarded by some denominations but not others as canonical. Modern Canons[edit] Today, most biblical compilations comply with either the standards set forth by the British and Foreign Bible Society in 1825 which corresponds to the so-called, "Protestant Bible" or with one that includes the Biblical apocrypha and deuterocanonical books prescribed for so-called Catholic Bibles. Other common variations include the pocket-sized Gideons International versions that include the New Testament, Psalms, and Proverbs although the selection of books for inclusion does not comprise a canon. This topic is about the selection of the books which make up the Tanakh. For the fixing of the text itself, see Masoretic Text. This topic is about the Jewish canon. For the Christian canon, see Development of the Old Testament canon. Rabbinic Judaism recognizes the 24 books of the Masoretic Text, commonly called the Tanakh or Hebrew Bible, as authoritative. Modern scholarship suggests that the most recently written are the books of Jonah, Lamentations, and Daniel, all of which may have been composed as late as the second century BCE. The Book of Deuteronomy includes a prohibition against adding or subtracting, which might apply to the book itself (i.e. a "closed book," a prohibition against future scribal editing) or to the instruction received by Moses on Mt. Sinai. The book of 2 Maccabees, itself not a part of the Jewish canon, describes Nehemiah (around 400 BCE) as having "founded a library and collected books about the kings and prophets, and the writings of David, and letters of kings about votive offerings" (2:13–15). The Book of Nehemiah suggests that the priest-scribe Ezra brought the Torah back from Babylon to Jerusalem and the Second Temple (8–9) around the same time period. Both 1 and 2 Maccabees suggest that Judas Maccabeus (around 167 BCE) also collected sacred books (3:42–50, 2:13–15, 15:6–9). There is no scholarly consensus as to when the Hebrew Bible canon was fixed: some scholars argue that it was fixed by the Hasmonean dynasty, while others argue it was not fixed until the second century CE or even later. Contents of Development of the Hebrew Bible Canon * 1 Sirach * 2 Septuagint * 3 Dead Sea Scrolls * 4 Philo * 5 Josephus * 6 2 Esdras * 7 Pharisees * 8 Council of Jamnia * 9 References
Sirach Evidence of a collection of sacred scripture similar to portions of the Hebrew Bible comes from the book of Sirach (dating from 180 BCE and not included in the Jewish canon), which includes a list of names of Old Testament biblical figures (44–49) in the same order as is found in the Torah and the Nevi'im (Prophets), and which includes the names of some men mentioned in the Ketuvim (Writings). Based on this list of names, some scholars have conjectured that the author, Yeshua ben Sira, had access to, and considered authoritative, the books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Job, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the Twelve Minor Prophets. His list excludes names from Ruth, Song of Songs, Esther and Daniel, suggesting that people mentioned in these works did not fit the criteria of his current listing of great men, or that he did not have access to these books, or did not consider them authoritative. In the prologue to the Greek translation of Ben Sira's work, his grandson, dated at 132 BCE, mentions both the Law (Torah) and the Prophets (Nevi'im), as well as a third group of books which is not yet named as Ketuvim (the prologue simply identifies "the rest of the books")
Septuagint The Septuagint (LXX) is a Koine Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures, translated in stages between the 3rd to 2nd century BCE in Alexandria, Egypt. According to Michael Barber, "In the Septuagint, the Torah and Nevi'im are established as canonical, but the Ketuvim appear not to have been definitively canonized yet (some editions of the Septuagint include, for instance I–IV Maccabees or the 151st Psalm, while others do not include them, also there are the Septuagint additions to Esther, Jeremiah, and Daniel and 1 Esdras). The author might have been done by seventy (or seventy-two) elders who translated the Hebrew Bible into Koine Greek but the historical evidence for this story is rather sketchy. " Beyond that, according to Barber, it is virtually impossible to determine when each of the other various books was incorporated into the Septuagint.
Philo and Josephus (both
associated with first century Hellenistic Judaism) ascribed divine
inspiration to its translators, and the primary ancient account of
the process is the circa 2nd century BCE Letter of Aristeas. Some of
the Dead Sea Scrolls attest to Hebrew texts other than those on which
the Masoretic Text was based; in some cases, these newly found texts
accord with the Septuagint version.
Dead Sea Scrolls The theory that there was a closed Hebrew canon of Second Temple Judaism was further challenged by the textual variants found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Michael Barber writes, "Up until recently it was assumed that “apocryphal” additions found in the books of the LXX represented later augmentations in the Greek to the Hebrew texts. In connection with this, the Masoretic text (MT) established by the rabbis in the medieval period has been accepted as the faithful witness to the Hebrew Bible of the 1st century. Yet, this presupposition is now being challenged in light of the Dead Sea Scrolls." Evidence that supports these challenges include the fact that "copies of some Biblical books found at Qumran reveal sharp divergences from the MT." As an example of such evidence, Barber asserts that "scholars were amazed to find that the Hebrew copies of 1 and 2 Samuel found in Cave 4 agree with the LXX against the MT. One of these fragments is dated into the third century BCE and is believed to be the very oldest copy of a biblical text found to date. Clearly the Masoretic version of 1–2 Samuel is significantly inferior here to the LXX exemplar." The Dead Sea scrolls refer to the Torah and Nevi'im and suggest that these portions of the Bible had been canonized before 68 CE. A scroll that contains all or parts of 41 biblical psalms, although in a different order than in the current Book of Psalms and which includes eight texts not found in the Book of Psalms, suggests that the Book of Psalms had not yet been canonized. See also Psalms 152–155.
Philo In the 1st century CE, Philo Judaeus of Alexandria discussed sacred books, but made no mention of a three part division of the Bible; though his De vita contemplativa (sometimes suggested in the 19th century to be of later, Christian, authorship) does state at III(25) that "studying&ldots; the laws and the sacred oracles of God enunciated by the holy prophets, and hymns, and psalms, and all kinds of other things by reason of which knowledge and piety are increased and brought to perfection." Philo quotes almost exclusively from the Torah, but occasionally from Ben Sira and Wisdom of Solomon
Josephus According to Michael Barber, the earliest and most explicit testimony of a Hebrew canonical list comes from Josephus (37CE – c. 100CE): "For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another [as the Greeks have], but only twenty-two books, which contain all the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine; and of them five belong to Moses, which contain his laws and the traditions of the origin of mankind till his death&ldots; the prophets, who were after Moses, wrote down what was done in their times in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God, and precepts for the conduct of human life." Josephus refers to sacred scriptures divided into three parts, the five books of the Torah, thirteen books of the Nevi'im, and four other books of hymns and wisdom. Since there are 24 books in the current Jewish canon instead of the 22 mentioned by Josephus, some scholars have suggested that he considered Ruth part of Judges, and Lamentations part of Jeremiah. Other scholars suggest that at the time Josephus wrote, such books as Esther and Ecclesiastes were not yet considered canonical. According to Gerald Larue, Josephus' listing represents what came to be the Jewish canon, although scholars were still wrestling with problems of the authority of certain writings at the time that he was writing. Significantly, Josephus characterizes the 22 books as canonical because they were divinely inspired; he mentions other historical books that were not divinely inspired and that he therefore did not believe belonged in the canon. Michael Barber agrees that although "scholars have reconstructed Josephus’ list differently, it seems clear that we have in his testimony a list of books very close to the Hebrew canon as it stands today." However, Barber avers that Josephus' canon is "not identical to that of the modern Hebrew Bible". He points out that it is debatable whether or not Josephus' canon had a tripartite structure. And thus, Barber warns that "one should be careful not to overstate the importance of Josephus." In support of this caveat, Barber points out that "Josephus was clearly a member of the Pharisaic party and, although he might not have liked to think so, his was not the universally accepted Jewish Bible—other Jewish communities included more than twenty-two books."
2 Esdras The first reference to a 24-book Jewish canon is found in 2 Esdras 14:45–46, which was probably written in the first half of the 2nd century CE: And when the forty days were ended, the Most High spoke to me, saying, "Make public the twenty-four books that you wrote first and let the worthy and the unworthy read them; but keep the seventy that were written last, in order to give them to the wise among your people.
Pharisees The Pharisees also debated the status of these extra-canonical books, and in the 2nd century CE Akiva ben Joseph declared that those who read them would not share in the afterlife (Sanhedrin 10:1).
Council of Jamnia The Mishnah, compiled at the end of the 2nd century CE, describes a debate over the status of some books of Ketuvim, and in particular over whether or not they render the hands "impure". Yadaim 3:5 calls attention to a debate over Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes. The Megillat Ta'anit, in a discussion of days when fasting is prohibited but that are not noted in the Bible, mentions the holiday of Purim. Based on these, and a few similar references, Heinrich Graetz concluded in 1871 that there had been a Council of Jamnia (or Yavne in Hebrew) which had decided Jewish canon sometime in the late 1st century (c. 70–90). This became the prevailing scholarly consensus for much of the 20th century. W. M. Christie was the first to dispute this popular theory in the July 1925 edition of The Journal of Theological Studies in an article entitled "The Jamnia Period in Jewish History". Jack P. Lewis wrote a critique of the popular consensus in the April 1964 edition of the Journal of Bible and Religion entitled "What Do We Mean by Jabneh?" Raymond E. Brown largely supported Lewis in his review published in the Jerome Biblical Commentary (also appears in the New Jerome Biblical Commentary of 1990), as did Lewis' discussion of the topic in 1992's Anchor Bible Dictionary. Sid Z. Leiman made an independent challenge for his University of Pennsylvania thesis published later as a book in 1976, in which he wrote that none of the sources used to support the theory actually mentioned books that had been withdrawn from a canon, and questioned the whole premise that the discussions were about canonicity at all, stating that they were actually dealing with other concerns entirely. Other scholars have since joined in and today the theory is largely discredited. Some scholars argue that the Jewish canon was fixed earlier by the Hasmonean dynasty. Jacob Neusner published books in 1987 and 1988 that argued that the notion of a biblical canon was not prominent in 2nd-century Rabbinic Judaism or even later and instead that a notion of Torah was expanded to include the Mishnah, Tosefta, Jerusalem Talmud, Babylonian Talmud and midrashim. Thus, there is no scholarly consensus as to when the Jewish canon was set. Nevertheless, the outcomes attributed to the Council of Jamnia did occur whether gradually or as the ruling of a definitive, authoritative council. According to Gerald Larue, the criteria used in the selection of sacred books to be included in the Jewish canon have not been set forth in any "clear-cut delineation" but appear to have included the following:
Protocanonical Books The protocanonical books are those books of the Old Testament that are also included in the Hebrew Bible and that came to be considered canonical during the formational period of Christianity. The term protocanonical is often used to contrast these books to the deuterocanonical books or apocrypha, which "were sometimes doubted" in the early church. List[edit] The list of protocanonical books is Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1–2 Samuel, 1–2 Kings, 1–2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. Enumeration[edit] These books are typically 39 in number in most English-language bibles. Based on the Jewish tradition of the Tanakh, these same books may be counted as 24 books, counting the twelve minor prophets together as one book, one book each for 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings, and 1 and 2 Chronicles, as well as a single book for Ezra and Nehemiah. In his prologues, Jerome counted the same content as 22 books, combining Jeremiah with Lamentations and Judges with Ruth. The list given in Codex Hierosolymitanus numbers the same books at 27. These enumerations were sometimes given a numerological significance. The 22-book enumeration was said to represent the number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet; the 5 double books (Judges/Ruth, 1/2 Samuel, 1/2 Kings, 1/2 Chronicles, Ezra/Nehemiah, and Jeremiah/Lamentations) representing the five Hebrew letters that have double forms, chaph, mem, nun, phe, and sade. The 24-book enumeration was said to be represented by the 24 elders who cast down their crowns before the Lamb in the Book of Revelation. The 27-book enumeration balances one-for-one the 27 canonical books of the New Testament. Early variants[edit] Most of the protocanonical books were broadly accepted among early Christians. However, some were omitted by a few of the earliest canons, In the case of the Marcionites, an early Christian sect that was dominant in some parts of the Roman Empire, this resulted in a canon radically different from that known today. The Marcionite canon excluded the entire Hebrew Bible in favor of a modified version of Luke and ten of the Pauline epistles. Apart from the extreme example of the Marcionites, isolated disagreements over certain books' canonicity continued for centuries. Athanasius, a fourth-century bishop of Alexandria, omitted Esther from his list, potentially having been influenced by an early 22-book Jewish canon, possibly the one mentioned but not specified by Josephus. Theodore of Mopsuestia omitted Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, Job, and Ezra-Nehemiah to obtain a listing of 22 books. New Testament[edit] By analogy with the early and broad acceptance of many of the Hebrew and Greek scriptural texts, the term protocanonical is also sometimes used to describe those works of the 27 book New Testament which were the most widely accepted by the early Church (the Homologoumena, a greek term meaning "confessed and undisputed"), as distinguished from the remaining books (the Antilegomena) which gained a later acceptance. It may also be used to refer to all 27 books in their entirety, since they all have been recognized for 1500 years by almost all Christians, especially when making a distinction between them and uncanonical writings of the early Church. For more information concerning the development of the New Testament canon, see the article Biblical canon.
For the Jewish canon, see Development of the Hebrew Bible canon. For the New Testament canon, see Development of the New Testament canon.
For the Jewish canon, see Development of the Hebrew Bible canon. For the Old Testament canon, see Development of the Old Testament canon.
Syria played an important or even predominant role in the beginning of Christianity. Here is where the Gospel of Matthew, the Gospel of Luke, the Didache, Ignatiana, and the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas were written. Syria was the country in which the Greek language intersected with the Syriac, which was closely related to the Aramaic dialect used by Jesus and the Apostles. That is why Syriac versions are highly esteemed by textual critics. Scholars have distinguished five or six different Syriac versions of all or part of the New Testament. It is possible that some translations have been lost. The majority of the manuscripts are now held in the British Library and in other European libraries. They came from countries like Lebanon, Egypt, Sinai, Mesopotamia, Armenia, Georgia, India, and even from China. This is good evidence for the great historical activity of the Syriac church. Contents of The Syriac Versions of The Bible
Diatessaron
This is the earliest translation
of the gospels into Syriac. Syriac is a Greek word for the language
spoken by the Syrians. It was an Aramaic dialect spoken in Syria. The
earliest translation of any New Testament text from Greek seems to
have been the Diatessaron, a harmony of the four canonical gospels
(perhaps with a non-extant fifth text) prepared about AD 170 by
Tatian in Rome. Although no text of the Diatessaron survives, its
foremost witness is a prose commentary on it by Ephrem the Syrian.
Although there are many so-called manuscript witnesses to the
Diatessaron, they all differ, and, ultimately only witness to the
enduring popularity of such harmonies. Many medieval European
harmonies draw on the Codex Fuldensis. The Old Syriac version of the four Gospels is preserved today in only two manuscripts, both with a large number of gaps. The Curetonian Gospels consist of fragments of the four Gospels. The text was brought in 1842 from the Nitrian Desert in Egypt, and is now held in the British Library. These fragments were examined by William Cureton and edited by him in 1858. The manuscript is dated paleographically to the 5th century. It is called Curetonian Syriac, and designated by Syrc or Syrc. The second manuscript is a palimpsest discovered by Agnes Smith Lewis in the Monastery of St. Catherine in 1892 at Mount Sinai, called Sinaitic Syriac, and designated by Syrs or Syrs. This version was known and cited by Ephrem the Syrian, thus suggesting a date of composition at the end of the 2nd century. It is a representative of the Western text-type. These two manuscripts represent only Gospels. The text of Acts and the Pauline Epistles has not survived to the present. It is known only from citations made by Eastern fathers. The text of Acts was reconstructed by F. C. Conybeare, and the text of the Pauline Epistles by J. Molitor. They used Ephrem's commentaries.
In early February 2009, a third
book was found in the possession of suspected antiquities smugglers
in northern Cyprus. It appears to be a Syriac Bible dating from about
2000 years ago. The manuscript contains Bible excerpts written on
vellum in gold lettering. One page has a drawing of a tree, and
another eight lines of Syriac script. It was loosely strung together.
Experts are divided over this manuscript, and whether it is an
original or a fake. The term Peshitta was used by Moses bar Kepha in 903 and means "simple" (in analogy to the Latin Vulgate). It is the oldest Syriac version which has survived to the present day in its entirety. It contains the entire Old Testament, most (?) of the apocryphal books, as well as 22 books of the New Testament, lacking the shorter General epistles (2-3 John, 2 Peter, Jude, as well as John 7:53-8:11). It was made in the beginning of the 5th century. Its authorship was ascribed to Rabbula, bishop of Edessa (411-435). The Syriac church still uses it to the present day. More than 350 manuscripts survived, several of which date from the 5th and 6th centuries. In the Gospels it is closer to the Byzantine text-type, but in Acts to the Western text-type. It is designated by Syrp or Syrp. The earliest manuscript of the Peshitta is a Pentateuch dated AD 464. There are two New Testament manuscripts of the 5th century (Codex Phillipps 1388). Some manuscripts British Library, Add. 14479 — the earliest dated Peshitta Apostolos. British Library, Add. 14459 — the oldest dated Syriac manuscript of the two Gospels British Library, Add. 14470 — the whole Peshitta text from the fifth/sixth century
British
Library, Add. 14448 — the major part of Peshitta from the 699/700 The Philoxenian was probably produced in 508 for Philoxenus, Bishop of Mabbug in eastern Syria. This translation contains the five books not found in the Peshitta: 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, and the Apocalypse. This translation survived only in short fragments. It is designated by syrph or syrph. Harclensis is designated by syrh. It is represented by some 35 manuscripts dating from the 7th century and later; they show kinship with the Western text-type. According to some scholars the Philoxenian and Harclensis are only recensions of Peshitta, but according to others they are independent new translations. About AD 500 a Palestinian Syriac version in was made the Palestinian dialect. It contains 2 Peter, 2-3 John, Jude, and Apocalypse. It is a representative of the Caesarean text-type and is a unique translation different from any other which was made into Syriac. These are among the manuscripts used by John Gwynn in 1893 to complete his edition of the Catholic Epistles. In 1892 Agnes Smith Lewis discovered the manuscript of the Palestinian Syriac lectionary in the library of the Monastery of St. Catherine on Mount Sinai. It is designated by Syrpal. Biblical Canon
A biblical canon, or canon of scripture, is a list of books considered to be authoritative scripture by a particular religious community. The word "canon" comes from the Greek meaning "rule" or "measuring stick". The term was first coined in reference to scripture by Christians, but the idea is said to be Jewish. Most of the canons listed below are considered "closed" (i.e., books cannot be added or removed), reflecting a belief that public revelation has ended and thus the inspired texts may be gathered into a complete and authoritative canon, which scholar Bruce Metzger defines as "an authoritative collection of books." In contrast, an "open canon", which permits the addition of books through the process of continuous revelation, Metzger defines as "a collection of authoritative books." (A table of Biblical scripture for both Testaments, with regard to canonical acceptance in Christendom's various major traditions, appears below.) These canons have been developed through debate and agreement by the religious authorities of their respective faiths. Believers consider canonical books to be inspired by God or to express the authoritative history of the relationship between God and his people. Books, such as the Jewish-Christian gospels, have been excluded from the canon altogether, but many disputed books considered non-canonical or even apocryphal by some are considered to be Biblical apocrypha or Deuterocanonical or fully canonical by others. There are differences between the Jewish Tanakh and Christian biblical canons, and between the canons of different Christian denominations. The differing criteria and processes of canonization dictate what the various communities regard as inspired scripture. In some cases where there are varying strata of scriptural inspiration, it becomes prudent even to discuss texts that only have an elevated status within a particular tradition. This becomes even more complex when considering the open canons of the various Latter Day Saint sects—which may be viewed as extensions of both Christianity and thus Judaism—and the scriptural revelations purportedly given to several leaders over the years within that movement. Jewish canons[edit] Main article: Development of the Hebrew Bible canon Rabbinic Judaism[edit]
Rabbinic Judaism recognizes the twenty-four books of the Masoretic Text, commonly called the Tanakh or Hebrew Bible. Evidence suggests that the process of canonization occurred between 200 BC and 200 AD, and a popular position is that the Torah was canonized c. 400 BC, the Prophets c. 200 BC, and the Writings c. 100 AD perhaps at a hypothetical Council of Jamnia—however, this position is increasingly criticised by modern scholars. The book of Deuteronomy includes a prohibition against adding or subtracting (4:2, 12:32) which might apply to the book itself (i.e. a "closed book", a prohibition against future scribal editing) or to the instruction received by Moses on Mt. Sinai. The book of 2 Maccabees, itself not a part of the Jewish canon, describes Nehemiah (c. 400 BC) as having "founded a library and collected books about the kings and prophets, and the writings of David, and letters of kings about votive offerings" (2:13–15). The Book of Nehemiah suggests that the priest-scribe Ezra brought the Torah back from Babylon to Jerusalem and the Second Temple (8–9) around the same time period. Both I and II Maccabees suggest that Judas Maccabeus (c. 167 BC) likewise collected sacred books (3:42–50, 2:13–15, 15:6–9), indeed some scholars argue that the Jewish canon was fixed by the Hasmonean dynasty. However, these primary sources do not suggest that the canon was at that time closed; moreover, it is not clear that these sacred books were identical to those that later became part of the canon. The Great Assembly, also known as the Great Synagogue, was, according to Jewish tradition, an assembly of 120 scribes, sages, and prophets, in the period from the end of the Biblical prophets to the time of the development of Rabbinic Judaism, marking a transition from an era of prophets to an era of Rabbis. They lived in a period of about two centuries ending c. 70 AD. Among the developments in Judaism that are attributed to them are the fixing of the Jewish Biblical canon, including the books of Ezekiel, Daniel, Esther, and the Twelve Minor Prophets; the introduction of the triple classification of the oral Torah, dividing its study into the three branches of midrash, halakot, and aggadot; the introduction of the Feast of Purim; and the institution of the prayer known as the Shemoneh 'Esreh as well as the synagogal prayers, rituals, and benedictions. In addition to the Tanakh, mainstream Rabbinic Judaism considers the Talmud to be another central, authoritative text. It takes the form of a record of rabbinic discussions pertaining to Jewish law, ethics, philosophy, customs, and history. The Talmud has two components: the Mishnah (c. 200 AD), the first written compendium of Judaism's oral Law; and the Gemara (c. 500 AD), an elucidation of the Mishnah and related Tannaitic writings that often ventures onto other subjects and expounds broadly on the Tanakh. (It is significant that there are numerous citations of Sirach within the Talmud, even though the book was not ultimately accepted into the Hebrew canon.) The Talmud is the basis for all codes of rabbinic law and is often quoted in other rabbinic literature. Certain groups of Jews, such as the Karaites, do not accept the oral Law as it is codified in the Talmud and only consider the Tanakh to be authoritative. Beta Israel[edit] This article contains Ethiopic text. Without proper rendering support, you may see question marks, boxes, or other symbols instead of Ethiopic characters. Ethiopian Jews—also known as Beta Israel—possess a canon of scripture that is distinct from Rabbinic Judaism. Mäs.h.afä Kedus (Holy Scriptures) is the name for the religious literature of these Jews, which is written primarily in Ge'ez. Their holiest book, the Orit, consists of the Pentateuch, as well as Joshua, Judges, and Ruth. The rest of the Ethiopian Jewish canon is considered to be of secondary importance. It consists of the remainder of the Hebrew canon—with the possible exception of the Book of Lamentations—and various deuterocanonical books. These include Sirach, Judith, Tobit, 1 and 2 Esdras, 1 and 4 Baruch, the three books of Meqabyan, Jubilees, Enoch, the Testament of Abraham, the Testament of Isaac, and the Testament of Jacob. The latter three patriarchal testaments are distinct to this scriptural tradition. A third tier of religious writings that are important to Ethiopian Jews, but are not considered to be part of the canon, include the following: Nagara Muse (The Conversation of Moses), Mota Aaron (Death of Aharon), Mota Muse (Death of Moses), Te'ezaza Sanbat (Precepts of Sabbath), Arde'et (Students), the Apocalypse of Gorgorios, Mäs.h.afä Sa'atat (Book of Hours), Abba Elias (Father Elija), Mäs.h.afä Mäla'?kt (Book of Angels), Mäs.h.afä Kahan (Book of Priests), D?rsanä Abr?ham Wäsara Bägabs (Homily on Abraham and Sarah in Egypt), Gadla Sosna (The Acts of Susanna), and Baqada-mi Gabra Egzi'abh.e-r (In the Beginning God Created). In addition to these, Zëna Ayhud (the Ethiopic version of Josippon) and the sayings of various fa-lasfa- (philosophers) are sources that are not necessarily considered holy, but nonetheless have great influence. Samaritan canon[edit] Main article: Samaritan Torah Another version of the Torah, in the Samaritan alphabet, also exists. This text is associated with the Samaritans, a people of whom the Jewish Encyclopedia states: "Their history as a distinct community begins with the taking of Samaria by the Assyrians in 722 BC." The Abisha Scroll; the oldest scroll among the Samaritans in Nablus and possibly the oldest surviving Pentateuch scroll on Earth. The Samaritan Pentateuch's relationship to the Masoretic Text is still disputed. Some differences are minor, such as the ages of different people mentioned in genealogy, while others are major, such as a commandment to be monogamous, which only appears in the Samaritan version. More importantly, the Samaritan text also diverges from the Masoretic in stating that Moses received the Ten Commandments on Mount Gerizim—not Mount Sinai—and that it is upon this mountain (Gerizim) that sacrifices to God should be made—not in Jerusalem. Scholars nonetheless consult the Samaritan version when trying to determine the meaning of text of the original Pentateuch, as well as to trace the development of text-families. Some scrolls among the Dead Sea scrolls have been identified as proto-Samaritan Pentateuch text-type. Comparisons have also been made between the Samaritan Torah and the Septuagint version. Samaritans consider the Torah to be inspired scripture, but do not accept any other parts of the Bible—probably a position also held by the Sadducees. They did not expand their canon by adding any Samaritan compositions. There is a Samaritan Book of Joshua, however this is a popular chronicle written in Arabic and is not considered to be scripture. Other non-canonical Samaritan religious texts include the Memar Markah (Teaching of Markah) and the Defter (Prayerbook)—both from the 4th century or later. The people of the remnants of the Samaritans in modern-day Israel/Palestine retain their version of the Torah as fully and authoritatively canonical. They regard themselves as the true "guardians of the Law." This assertion is only re-enforced by the claim of the Samaritan community in Nablus (an area traditionally associated with the ancient city of Shechem) to possess the oldest existing copy of the Torah—one that they believe to have been penned by Abisha, a grandson of Aaron. Christian biblical canons[edit] Main articles: Christian biblical canons, Development of the Christian biblical canon and Canonical gospels Early Church[edit] Earliest Christian communities[edit] Though the Early Church used the Old Testament according to the canon of the Septuagint (LXX), perhaps as found in the Bryennios List or Melito's canon, the Apostles did not otherwise leave a defined set of new scriptures; instead, the New Testament developed over time. Writings attributed to the apostles circulated amongst the earliest Christian communities. The Pauline epistles were circulating in collected forms by the end of the 1st century AD. Justin Martyr, in the early 2nd century, mentions the "memoirs of the Apostles," which Christians called "gospels," and which were considered to be authoritatively equal to the Old Testament. Marcion's canon[edit] Marcion of Sinope was the first Christian leader in recorded history (though later, considered heretical) to propose and delineate a uniquely Christian canon (c. 140 AD). This included 10 epistles from St. Paul, as well as a version of the Gospel of Luke, which today is known as the Gospel of Marcion. In so doing, he established a particular way of looking at religious texts that persists in Christian thought today. After Marcion, Christians began to divide texts into those that aligned well with the "canon" (measuring stick) of accepted theological thought and those that promoted heresy. This played a major role in finalizing the structure of the collection of works called the Bible. It has been proposed that the initial impetus for the proto-orthodox Christian project of canonization flowed from opposition to the canonization of Marcion. Apostolic Fathers[edit] A four-gospel canon (the Tetramorph) was asserted by Irenaeus in the following quote: "It is not possible that the gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. For, since there are four-quarters of the earth in which we live, and four universal winds, while the church is scattered throughout all the world, and the 'pillar and ground' of the church is the gospel and the spirit of life, it is fitting that she should have four pillars breathing out immortality on every side, and vivifying men afresh&ldots; Therefore the gospels are in accord with these things&ldots; For the living creatures are quadriform and the gospel is quadriform&ldots; These things being so, all who destroy the form of the gospel are vain, unlearned, and also audacious; those [I mean] who represent the aspects of the gospel as being either more in number than as aforesaid, or, on the other hand, fewer." A folio from P46; an early 3rd-century collection of Pauline epistles. By the early 3rd century, Christian theologians like Origen of Alexandria may have been using—or at least were familiar with—the same 27 books found in modern New Testament editions, though there were still disputes over the canonicity of some of the writings (see also Antilegomena). Likewise by 200, the Muratorian fragment shows that there existed a set of Christian writings somewhat similar to what is now the New Testament, which included four gospels and argued against objections to them. Thus, while there was a good measure of debate in the Early Church over the New Testament canon, the major writings were accepted by almost all Christians by the middle of the 3rd century. Eastern Church[edit] Alexandrian Fathers[edit] Origen of Alexandria (184/5-253/4), an early scholar involved in the codification of the Biblical canon, had a thorough education both in Christian theology and in pagan philosophy, but was posthumously condemned at the Second Council of Constantinople in 553. Origen's canon included all of the books in the current Catholic canon except for four books: James, 2nd Peter, and the 2nd and 3rd epistles of John. He also included the Shepherd of Hermas which was later rejected. The religious scholar Bruce Metzger described Origen's efforts, saying "The process of canonization represented by Origen proceeded by way of selection, moving from many candidates for inclusion to fewer." This was one of the first major attempts at the compilation of certain books and letters as authoritative and inspired teaching for the Early Church at the time, although it is unclear whether Origen intended for his list to be authoritative itself. In his Easter letter of 367, Patriarch Athanasius of Alexandria gave a list of exactly the same books that would become the New Testament–27 book–proto-canon, and used the phrase "being canonized" (kanonizomena) in regard to them. Athanasius also included the Book of Baruch, as well as the Letter of Jeremiah, in his Old Testament canon. However, from this canon, he omitted the book of Esther. Eastern canons[edit] The Eastern Churches had, in general, a weaker feeling than those in the West for the necessity of making a sharp delineation with regard to the canon. They were more conscious of the gradation of spiritual quality among the books that they accepted (e.g. the classification of Eusebius, see also Antilegomena) and were less often disposed to assert that the books which they rejected possessed no spiritual quality at all. For example, the Trullan Synod of 691–692, which was rejected by Pope Constantine (see also Pentarchy), endorsed the following lists of canonical writings: the Apostolic Canons (c. 385), the Synod of Laodicea (c. 363), the Third Synod of Carthage (c. 397), and the 39th Festal Letter of Athanasius (367). And yet, these lists do not agree. Similarly, the New Testament canons of the Syriac, Armenian, Georgian, Egyptian Coptic and Ethiopian Churches all have minor differences. The Revelation of John is one of the most uncertain books; it was not translated into Georgian until the 10th century, and it has never been included in the official lectionary of the Eastern Orthodox Church, whether in Byzantine or modern times. Western Church[edit] Latin Fathers[edit] The first council that accepted the present Catholic canon (the Canon of Trent) may have been the Synod of Hippo Regius in North Africa (393); the acts of this council, however, are lost. A brief summary of the acts was read at and accepted by the Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419. These councils were under the authority of St. Augustine, who regarded the canon as already closed. Pope Damasus I's Council of Rome in 382, if the Decretum Gelasianum is correctly associated with it, issued a biblical canon identical to that mentioned above, or if not, the list is at least a 6th-century compilation. Likewise, Damasus' commissioning of the Latin Vulgate edition of the Bible, c. 383, was instrumental in the fixation of the canon in the West. In 405, Pope Innocent I sent a list of the sacred books to a Gallic bishop, Exsuperius of Toulouse. When these bishops and councils spoke on the matter, however, they were not defining something new, but instead "were ratifying what had already become the mind of the Church." Thus, from the 4th century, there existed unanimity in the West concerning the New Testament canon (as it is today), and by the 5th century the East, with a few exceptions, had come to accept the Book of Revelation and thus had come into harmony on the matter of the New Testament canon. A Gutenberg Bible on display. Luther's canon[edit] Main article: Luther's canon Martin Luther (1483–1546) made an attempt to remove the books of Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation from the canon (partially because they were perceived to go against certain Protestant doctrines such as sola scriptura and sola fide), but this was not generally accepted among his followers. However, these books are ordered last in the German-language Luther Bible to this day. In addition, Luther moved the books that later became the Deuterocanonicals into a section he called the Apocrypha. Protestant canon[edit] Main article: Protestant Bible Protestants note that early Christians evidenced a knowledge of a canon of Scripture, based upon internal evidence, as well as by the existence of a list of Old Testament books by Melito of Sardis, compiled around 170 AD (see Melito's canon). Many modern Protestants point to the following four "Criteria for Canonicity" to justify the selection of the books that have been included in the New Testament—though these ideas aren't isolated to Protestant theology, but extend to or are derived from other Christian traditions:
1. Apostolic Origin — attributed to and based upon the preaching/teaching of the first-generation apostles (or their close companions). 2. Universal Acceptance — acknowledged by all major Christian communities in the ancient world (by the end of the 4th century) as well as accepted canon by Jewish authorities (for the Old Testament). 3. Liturgical Use — read publicly when early Christian communities gathered for the Lord's Supper (their weekly worship services). 4. Consistent Message — containing a theological outlook similar to or complementary to other accepted Christian writings. It is sometimes difficult to apply these criteria to all of the books in the accepted canon, however, and one can point to writings that Protestants consider to be unscriptural which would fulfill these requirements. In practice, most Protestants hold to the Jewish Tanakh for the Old Testament and the Roman Catholic canon for the New Testament. Canons of various Christian traditions[edit] Full dogmatic articulations of the canons were not made until the Council of Trent of 1546 for Roman Catholicism, the Thirty-Nine Articles of 1563 for the Church of England, the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1647 for Calvinism, and the Synod of Jerusalem of 1672 for the Greek Orthodox. Other traditions, while also having closed canons, may not be able to point to the exact years in which their respective canons were considered to be complete. The following tables reflect the current state of various Christian canons. Old Testament[edit] Main article: Development of the Old Testament canon All of the major Christian traditions accept the books of the Hebrew protocanon in its entirety as divinely inspired and authoritative. Furthermore, all of these traditions, with the exception of the Protestants, add to this number various deuterocanonical books. However, in some Protestant Bibles—especially the English King James Bible and the Lutheran Bible—many of these deuterocanonical books are retained as part of the tradition in a section called the "Apocrypha." Some books listed here, like the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs for the Armenian Apostolic Church, may have once been a vital part of a Biblical tradition, may even still hold a place of honor, but are no longer considered to be part of the Bible. Other books, like the Prayer of Manasseh for the Roman Catholic Church, may have been included in manuscripts, but never really attained a high level of importance within that particular tradition. The levels of traditional prominence for others, like Psalms 152–155 and the Psalms of Solomon of the Syriac churches, remain unclear. In so far as the Orthodox Tewahedo canon is concerned, some points of clarity should be made. First, the books of Lamentations, Jeremiah, and Baruch, as well as the Letter of Jeremiah and 4 Baruch, are all considered canonical by the Orthodox Tewahedo Churches. However, it is not always clear as to how these writings are arranged or divided. In some lists, they may simply fall under the title "Jeremiah," while in others, they are divided various ways into separate books. Moreover, the book of Proverbs is divided into two books—Messale (Prov. 1–24) and Tägsas (Prov. 25–31).
Additionally, while the books of
Jubilees and Enoch are fairly well-known among western scholars, 1,
2, and 3 Meqabyan are not. The three books of Meqabyan are often
called the "Ethiopian Maccabees," but are completely
different in content from the books of Maccabees that are known
and/or have been canonized in other traditions. Finally, the Book of
Joseph ben Gurion, or Pseudo-Josephus, is a history of the Jewish
people thought to be based upon the writings of Josephus. The
Ethiopic version (Zëna Ayhud) has eight parts and is included in
the Orthodox Tewahedo broader canon. Development of the Christian Biblical Canon For the Jewish canon, see Development of the Hebrew Bible canon. The Christian biblical canons are the books Christians regard as divinely inspired and constituting a Christian Bible. Books included in the Christian biblical canons of both the Old and New Testament were decided by the 5th century for the ancient undivided Church (which includes both Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions) and was reaffirmed by the Catholic Church in the wake of the Protestant Reformation at the Council of Trent (1546). The canons of the Church of England and English Calvinists were decided definitively by the Thirty-Nine Articles (1563) and the Westminster Confession of Faith (1647), respectively. The Synod of Jerusalem (1672) established additional canons that are widely accepted throughout the Orthodox Church. The Old and New Testament canons did not develop independently of each other and most primary sources for the canon specify both Old and New Testament books. A comprehensive table of biblical scripture for both Testaments, with regard to canonical acceptance in Christendom's various major traditions, can be found here. Contents of The Development of the Christian Biblical Canon
Development of the Old Testament Canon Development
of the New Testament Canon Main article: Development of the Old Testament canon The Old Testament (sometimes abbreviated OT) is the first section of the two-part Christian Biblical canon and is based on the Hebrew Bible but can include several Deuterocanonical books or Anagignoskomena depending on the particular Christian denomination. For a full discussion of these differences, see Books of the Bible. Following Jerome's Veritas Hebraica, the Protestant Old Testament consists of the same books as the Hebrew Bible, but the order and numbering of the books are different. Protestants number the Old Testament books at 39, while the Jews number the same books as 24. This is because the Jews consider Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles to form one book each, group the 12 minor prophets into one book, and also consider Ezra and Nehemiah a single book. The traditional explanation of the development of the Old Testament canon describes two sets of Old Testament books, the protocanonical books and the deuterocanonical books (the latter considered non-canonical by Protestants). According to this theory, certain Church fathers accepted the inclusion of the deuterocanonical books based on their inclusion in the Septuagint (most notably Augustine), while others disputed their status and did not accept them as divinely inspired scripture (most notably Jerome). Michael Barber, a Roman Catholic theologian, argues that this reconstruction is grossly inaccurate. ~ Books of the Old Testament ~ Canon common to Judaism, Samaritanism and Christianity (excepting the minority of Protestant denominations sometimes called New Testament only Christians which reject the "Old Testament")
Canon Common to Judaism and Christianity but excluded by Samaritans
These are one book in the Jewish Bible, called "Trei Asar" or "Twelve". Included by Roman Catholics, Orthodox, but excluded by Jews, Samaritans and most Protestants:
Included by Orthodox (Synod of Jerusalem):
Included by Russian and Ethiopian Orthodox:
Included by Ethiopian Orthodox:
Development of the New Testament Canon Main articles: Canonical gospels and Development of the New Testament canon The development of the New Testament canon was, like that of the Old Testament, a gradual process. Irenaeus quotes and cites 21 books that would end up as part of the New Testament, the excluded ones being Philemon, Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 3 John and Jude. By the early 200s, Origen of Alexandria may have been using the same 27 books as in the modern New Testament, though there were still disputes over the canonicity of Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Revelation, see also Antilegomena. Likewise by 200 the Muratorian fragment shows that there existed a set of Christian writings somewhat similar to what is now the New Testament, which included four gospels and argued against objections to them. Thus, while there was plenty of discussion in the Early Church over the New Testament canon, the major writings were accepted by almost all Christian authorities by the middle of the second century. The next two hundred years followed a similar process of continual discussion throughout the entire Church, and localized refinements of acceptance. As the Church worked to become of one mind, the approximate completeness of agreement merged gradually closer to unity. This process was not yet complete at the time of the First Council of Nicaea in 325, though substantial progress had been made by then. It has been conjectured that Constantine's commission in 331 of fifty copies of the Bible for the Church at Constantinople may have been an early occasion for establishing a formal list of the canonical books, leading to later formal affirmations, though no concrete evidence exists to support the idea. Lacking an established list, the resolution of questions would normally have been directed through the see of Constantinople, in consultation with Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea (who was given the commission), and perhaps other bishops who were available locally. In his Easter letter of 367, Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, gave a list of exactly the same books that would formally become the New Testament canon, and he used the word "canonized" (kanonizomena) in regards to them. The first council that accepted the present Catholic canon (the Canon of Trent) may have been the Synod of Hippo Regius in North Africa (AD 393); the acts of this council, however, are lost. A brief summary of the acts was read at and accepted by the Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419. These councils were under the authority of St. Augustine, who regarded the canon as already closed. Pope Damasus I's Council of Rome in 382, if the Decretum Gelasianum is correctly associated with it, issued a biblical canon identical to that mentioned above, or if not the list is at least a sixth-century compilation. Likewise, Damasus's commissioning of the Latin Vulgate edition of the Bible, circa 383, was instrumental in the fixation of the canon in the West. In 405, Pope Innocent I sent a list of the sacred books to a Gallic bishop, Exsuperius of Toulouse. When these bishops and councils spoke on the matter, however, they were not defining something new, but instead "were ratifying what had already become the mind of the church." Thus, from the fifth century onward, the Western Church was unanimous concerning the New Testament canon. The last book to be accepted universally was the Book of Revelation, though with time all the Eastern Church also agreed. Thus, in the fifth century, all of Christendom had come into complete accord on the matter of the New Testament canon. In the tradition of the undivided Church, the unanimous oneness of the mind of the Church established the canon of the New Testament even more firmly than an ecumenical council would have; the finalization was no longer in any doubt whatsoever in any part of Christendom. The Council of Trent of 1546 reaffirmed that finalization for Roman Catholicism in the wake of the Protestant Reformation. The Thirty-Nine Articles of 1563 for the Church of England and the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1647 for English Calvinism established the official finalizations for those new branches of Christianity in light of the break with Rome. The Synod of Jerusalem of 1672 made no changes to the New Testament canon for any Orthodox, but resolved some questions about some of the minor Old Testament books for the Greek Orthodox and most other Orthodox jurisdictions (who chose to accept it). ~ Books of the New Testament ~
Dating the Bible The oldest surviving Hebrew Bible manuscripts including the Dead Sea Scrolls date to about the 2nd century BCE (fragmentary) and some are stored at the Shrine of the Book in Jerusalem. The oldest record of the complete text survives in a Greek translation called the Septuagint, dating to the 4th century CE (Codex Sinaiticus). The oldest extant manuscripts of the vocalized Masoretic Text, which modern editions are based upon, date to the 9th century CE. With the exception of a few biblical sections in the Prophets, virtually no biblical text is contemporaneous with the events it describes. From the internal testimony of the texts, the individual books of the 27-book New Testament canon are likely dated to the 1st century CE. The first book written was probably 1 Thessalonians, written at around 50 CE. The last book of the canon is the Book of Revelation said to be written by John of Patmos during the reign of Domitian (81-96). Since the original writing of the scriptures, huge volumes of copies have been made of the originals, which are no longer extant, and copies have been made of those copies, resulting in several text types. Archaeologists have recovered about 5,500 New Testament manuscripts, being fragments or complete books. The earliest extant fragment of the New Testament is the Rylands Library Papyrus P52, a piece of the Gospel of John dated to the first half of the 2nd century. Dating the composition of the texts relies primarily on internal evidence, including direct references to historical events, as resorting to textual criticism, philological and linguistic evidence is more subjective. Contents
* 1 The Hebrew Bible o 1.1 Torah o 1.2 Nevi'im (Prophets) o 1.3 Ketuvim (Writings) * 2 Deuterocanonical books * 3 The New Testament * 4 See also * 5 Notes * 6 Further reading * 7 External links
The Hebrew Bible[edit] Torah[edit] Main articles: Mosaic authorship and Documentary hypothesis
The first five books of the bible in Judaism are called the Torah, meaning "instruction" (it was translated to nomos/law in the Septuagint), and are regarded as the most important section of the Scriptures, are attributed to having have been written between the 16th century and the 12th century BCE by Moses, but scholars now believe that they were actually written by four main sources known as JEDP. This modern explanation of authorship is justified by variations in writing styles, differences in language choice especially in reference to God, tones in writing, contradictory and repetitious segments, and that the books refer to Moses in third person as well as describing his death. Followers of the Copenhagen School place its origins in 5th century Yehud Medinata. Deuteronomy is treated separately from Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers. The process of its formation probably took several hundred years, from the 8th century to the 6th BCE. It began as no more than the set of religious laws which today make up the bulk of the book; later it was extended in order to be used as the introduction to the comprehensive history of Israel written in the early part of the 6th century; and later still it was detached from the history, extended yet again, and used to conclude the story told in Genesis-Exodus-Leviticus-Numbers. Nevi'im (Prophets)[edit] Main article: Nevi'im Book of Nevi'im Scholarly dating Book of Joshua ca. 625 BCE by the Deuteronomist (called D) working with traditional materials Book of Judges ca. 625 BCE by the Deuteronomist (called D) working with traditional materials Books of Samuel ca. 625 BCE by the Deuteronomist (called D) working with traditional materials Books of Kings ca. 625 BCE by the Deuteronomist (called D) working with traditional materials Book of Isaiah Three main authors and an extensive editing process:
Isaiah 1-39 "Historical Isaiah" with multiple layers of editing, 8th century BCE Isaiah 40-55 Exilic(Deutero-Isaiah), 6th century BCE Isaiah 56-66 post-exilic(Trito-Isaiah), 6th-5th century BCE Book of Jeremiah late 6th century BCE or later Book of Ezekiel 6th century BCE or later Book of Hosea 8th century BCE or later Book of Joel unknown Book of Amos 8th century BCE or later Book of Obadiah 6th century BCE or later Book of Jonah 6th century BCE or later Book of Micah mid 6th century BCE or later Book of Nahum 8th century BCE or later Book of Habakkuk 6th century BCE or later Book of Zephaniah 7th century BCE or later Book of Haggai 5th century BCE or later Book of Zechariah 5th century BCE or later Book of Malachi Early 5th century BCE or later Ketuvim (Writings)[edit] Main article: Ketuvim Book of Ketuvim Scholarly dating Psalms The bulk of the Psalms appear to have been written for use in the Temple, which existed from around 950-586 BCE and, after rebuilding, from the 5th century BCE until 70 CE. Book of Proverbs Some old material from the ancient sages, some later material from the 6th century BCE or later, some material borrowed from the ancient Egyptian text called the Instructions of Amenemopet Book of Job 5th century BCE Song of Songs or Song of Solomon scholarly estimates vary between 950 BCE to 200 BCE Book of Ruth 6th century BCE or later Lamentations 6th century BCE or later Ecclesiastes 4th century BCE or later Book of Esther 4th century BCE or later Book of Daniel ca. 165 BCE Book of Ezra-Book of Nehemiah 4th century BCE or slightly later Chronicles 4th century BCE or slightly later Deuterocanonical books[edit]
Deuterocanonical books are books considered by the Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodoxy to be canonical parts of the Christian Old Testament but are not present in the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible) and Protestant Bible. Book of Deuterocanon Scholarly dating Tobit 2nd century BCE Judith 1 Maccabees ca. 100 BCE 2 Maccabees ca. 124 BCE 3 Maccabees 1st century BCE or 1st century CE 4 Maccabees 1st century BCE or 1st century CE Wisdom during the Jewish Hellenistic period Sirach 2nd century BCE Letter of Jeremiah unknown Additions to Daniel 2nd century BCE Baruch during or shortly after the period of the Maccabees The New Testament[edit]
The following table gives the most widely accepted dates for the composition of the New Testament books, together with the earliest preserved fragment for each text. Book Dates determined by scholars Earliest Known Fragment Gospel of Matthew 70-110 CE \mathfrak{P}104 (150–200 CE) Gospel of Mark 60-70 CE \mathfrak{P}88 (350 CE) Gospel of Luke 60-90 CE \mathfrak{P}4, \mathfrak{P}75 (175–250 CE) Gospel of John 80-95 CE \mathfrak{P}52 (125–160 CE) Acts 60-90 CE \mathfrak{P}29, \mathfrak{P}45, \mathfrak{P}48, \mathfrak{P}53, \mathfrak{P}91 (250 CE) Romans 57–58 CE \mathfrak{P}46 (late 2nd century or 3rd century CE) Corinthians 57 CE \mathfrak{P}46 (late 2nd century or 3rd century CE) Galatians 45-55 CE \mathfrak{P}46 (late 2nd century or 3rd century CE) Ephesians 65 CE \mathfrak{P}46 (late 2nd century or 3rd century CE) Philippians 57–62 CE \mathfrak{P}46 (late 2nd century or 3rd century CE) Colossians 60 CE + \mathfrak{P}46 (late 2nd century or 3rd century CE) 1 Thessalonians 50 CE \mathfrak{P}46 (late 2nd century or 3rd century CE) 2 Thessalonians 50-54 CE \mathfrak{P}92 (300 CE) Timothy 60-100 CE Codex Sinaiticus (350 CE) Titus 60-100 CE \mathfrak{P}32 (200 CE) Philemon 56 CE \mathfrak{P}87 (3rd century CE) Hebrews 63-90 CE \mathfrak{P}46 (late 2nd century or 3rd century CE) James 50-200 CE \mathfrak{P}20, \mathfrak{P}23 (early 3rd century CE) First Peter 60-96 CE \mathfrak{P}72 (3rd/4th century CE) Second Peter 60-130 CE \mathfrak{P}72 (3rd/4th century CE) Epistles of John 90-110 CE \mathfrak{P}9, Uncial 0232, Codex Sinaiticus (3rd/4th century CE) Jude 66-90 CE \mathfrak{P}72 (3rd/4th century CE) Revelation 68-100 CE \mathfrak{P}98 (150–200 CE) See also[edit]
* Authorship of the Bible * The Bible and history * Biblical manuscripts * Categories of New Testament manuscripts * Dead Sea Scrolls * Higher Criticism * Markan priority * Nag Hammadi library Bible Timeline
Criticism of the Bible The view that the Bible should be accepted as historically accurate and as a reliable guide to morality has been questioned by many scholars in the field of biblical criticism. In addition to concerns about morality, inerrancy, or historicity, there remain some questions of which books should be included in the Bible (see canon of scripture). Jews discount the New Testament and Old Testament Deuterocanonicals, Jews and most Christians discredit the legitimacy of New Testament apocrypha, and a view sometimes referred to as Jesusism does not affirm the scriptural authority of any biblical text other than the teachings of Jesus in the Gospels.
Contents [hide] 1 Bible history issues 2 Translation issues 3 Ethics in the Bible 4 Internal consistency 5 The Bible and science 6 The Bible and archaeology 7 Unfulfilled prophecies 7.1 Messianic prophecies 7.2 Prophecies after the event 7.3 The success of Joshua 7.4 The destruction of Tyre 7.5 The protection of the King of Judah 7.6 The death of the king of Judah 7.7 The death of Josiah 7.8 The land promised to Abraham 7.9 The fate of Damascus 7.10 The fate of Jews who stay in Egypt 7.11 The return of Jewish prisoners of war 7.12 The strength of Judah 7.13 The identity of the conquerors of Babylon 7.14 Jehoiakim prophecies 7.15 New Testament 7.15.1 The imminence of the second coming
8 Notable critics 9 See also 10 References 11 Further reading 12 External links
Bible history issues[edit] Main articles: Biblical Criticism and Higher Criticism
The Hebrew Bible and Christian Bibles are works considered sacred and authoritative writings by their respective faith groups that revere their specific collections of biblical writings.[1] The Hebrew Bible, upon which the Christian Old Testament is based, was originally composed in Biblical Hebrew, except for parts of Daniel and Ezra that were written in Biblical Aramaic. These writings depict Israelite religion from its beginnings to about the 2nd century BC. The Christian New Testament was written in Koine Greek. (See Language of the New Testament for details.)
At the end of the 17th century few Bible scholars would have doubted that Moses wrote the Torah, but in the late 18th century some liberal scholars began to question his authorship, and by the end of the 19th century some went as far as to claim that as a whole the work was of many more authors over many centuries from 1000 BC (the time of David) to 500 BC (the time of Ezra), and that the history it contained was often more polemical rather than strictly factual. By the first half of the 20th century Hermann Gunkel had drawn attention to mythic aspects, and Albrecht Alt, Martin Noth and the tradition history school argued that although its core traditions had genuinely ancient roots, the narratives were fictional framing devices and were not intended as history in the modern sense.
While the limits of the canon were effectively set in these early centuries, the status of scripture has been a topic of scholarly discussion in the later church. Increasingly, the biblical works have been subjected to literary and historical criticism in efforts to interpret the texts independent of Church and dogmatic influences. Different views of the authority and inspiration of the Bible also continue to be expressed in liberal and fundamentalist churches today. What cannot be denied, however, is the enormous influence which the stories, poetry, and reflections found in the biblical writings have had, not only on the doctrines and practices of two major faiths, but also on Western culture, its literature, art, and music.[1]
In the 2nd century, the gnostics often claimed that their form of Christianity was the first, and they regarded Jesus as a teacher, or allegory.[2] Elaine Pagels has proposed that there are several examples of gnostic attitudes in the Pauline Epistles.[citation needed] Bart D. Ehrman and Raymond E. Brown note that some of the Pauline epistles are widely regarded by scholars as pseudonymous,[3] and it is the view of Timothy Freke, and others, that this involved a forgery in an attempt by the Church to bring in Paul's Gnostic supporters and turn the arguments in the other Epistles on their head.
Some critics have alleged that Christianity is not founded on a historical figure, but rather on a mythical creation.[4] This view proposes that the idea of Jesus was the Jewish manifestation of a pan-Hellenic cult, known as Osiris-Dionysus,[5] which acknowledged the non-historic nature of the figure, using it instead as a teaching device.
Translation issues[edit]
Main articles: Biblical manuscripts, Textual criticism and Biblical inerrancy
Some critics express concern that none of the original manuscripts of the books of the Bible still exist. All translations of the Bible have been made from well-respected but centuries-old copies. Religious communities value highly those who interpret their scriptures at both the scholarly and popular levels. Translation of scripture into the vernacular (such as English and hundreds of other languages), though a common phenomenon, is also a subject of debate and criticism.[6]
Translation has led to a number of issues, as the original languages are often quite different in grammar and word meaning. While the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy states that "inerrancy" applies only to the original languages, some believers trust their own translation as the truly accurate one—for example, the King-James-Only Movement. For readability, clarity, or other reasons, translators may choose different wording or sentence structure, and some translations may choose to paraphrase passages.
Because many of the words in the original language have ambiguous or difficult to translate meanings, debates over correct interpretation occur. For instance, at creation(Gen 1:2), is ??? ????? (ruwach 'elohiym) the "wind of god", "spirit of god"(i.e., the Holy Spirit in Christianity), or a "mighty wind" over the primordial deep? In Hebrew, ???(ruwach) can mean "wind","breath" or "spirit". Both ancient and modern translators are divided over this and many other such ambiguities.[7][8][9][10] Another example is the word used in the Masoretic Text [Isa 7:14] to indicate the woman who would bear Immanuel is alleged to mean a young, unmarried woman in Hebrew, while Matthew 1:23 follows the Septuagint version of the passage that uses the Greek word parthenos, translated virgin, and is used to support the Christian idea of virgin birth. Those who view the masoretic text, which forms the basis of most English translations of the Old Testament, as being more accurate than the Septuagint, and trust its usual translation, may see this as an inconsistency, whereas those who take the Septuagint to be accurate may not.
In the History of the English Bible, there have been many changes to the wording, leading to several competing versions. Many of these have contained Biblical errata—typographic errors, such as the phrases Is there no treacle in Gilead?, Printers have persecuted me without cause, and Know ye not that the unrighteous shall inherit the kingdom of God?, and even Thou shalt commit adultery.[11]
More recently, several discoveries of ancient manuscripts such as the Dead Sea scrolls, and Codex Sinaiticus, have led to modern translations like the New International Version differing somewhat from the older ones such as the 17th century King James Version, removing verses not present in the earliest manuscripts (see List of omitted Bible verses), some of which are acknowledged as interpolations, such as the Comma Johanneum, others having several highly variant versions in very important places, such as the resurrection scene in Mark 16. The King-James-Only Movement rejects these changes and uphold the King James Version as the most accurate.[12]
Ethics in the Bible[edit]
Main article: Ethics in the Bible
Certain moral decisions in the Bible are questioned by many modern groups. Some of the most commonly criticized ethical choices include subjugation of women, religious intolerance, use of capital punishment as penalty for violation of Mosaic Law, sexual acts like incest,[13] toleration of the institution of slavery in both Old and New Testaments,[14] obligatory religious wars and the order to commit the genocide of the Canaanites and the Amalekites. Christian Apologists support the Bible's decisions by reminding critics that they should be considered from the author's point of view and that Mosaic Law applied to the Israelite people (who lived before the birth of Jesus). Other religious groups see nothing wrong with the Bible's judgments.[15] One example that is often cited is the biblical law of the rebellious son:[16]
"If any man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his father or his mother, and when they chastise him, he will not even listen to them, then his father and mother shall seize him, and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gateway of his home town. And they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey us, he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ Then all the men of his city shall stone him to death; so you shall remove the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear of it and fear." (Deut. 21:18-21)
Other critics of the Bible, such as Friedrich Nietzsche who popularized the phrase "God is dead",[17] have questioned the morality of the New Testament, regarding it as weak and conformist-oriented.
Internal consistency[edit]
Main article: Internal consistency of the Bible
There are many places in the Bible in which inconsistencies—such as different numbers and names for the same feature, and different sequences for the same events—have been alleged and presented by critics as difficulties.[18] Responses to these criticisms include the modern documentary hypothesis, the two-source hypothesis and theories that the Pastoral Epistles are pseudonymous.[19]:p.47 Contrasting with these critical stances are positions supported by other authorities that consider the texts to be consistent. Such advocates maintain that the Torah was written by a single source, the Gospels by four independent witnesses, and all of the Pauline Epistles to have been written by the Apostle Paul.[citation needed]
However authors such as Raymond Brown have presented arguments that the Gospels actually contradict each other in various important respects and on various important details.[20] W. D. Davies and E. P. Sanders state that: "on many points, especially about Jesus’ early life, the evangelists were ignorant &ldots; they simply did not know, and, guided by rumour, hope or supposition, did the best they could".[21] More critical scholars see the nativity stories either as completely fictional accounts,[22] or at least constructed from traditions that predate the Gospels.[23][24]
For example, many versions of the Bible specifically point out that the most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses did not include Mark 16:9-20, i.e., the Gospel of Mark originally ended at Mark 16:8, and additional verses were added a few hundred years later. This is known as the "Markan Appendix".[25][26][27]
Mosaic authorship, authorship of the Gospels and authorship of the Pauline Epistles are topics that remain widely debated.
The Bible and science[edit]
Main article: Science and the Bible
The universe, as presented literally in the Bible, consists of a flat earth within a geocentric arrangement of planets and stars (e.g. Joshua 10:12–13, Eccles. 1:5, Isaiah 40:22, 1 Chron. 16:30, Matthew 4:8, Rev. 7:1).
Joshua 10:12 On the day that the Lord gave up the Amorites to the Israelites, Joshua stood before all the people of Israel and said to the Lord: “Sun, stand still over Gibeon. Moon, stand still over the Valley of Aijalon.” 13 So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped until the people defeated their enemies.
Eccles. 1:5 The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises.
Isaiah 40:22 He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.
1 Chron. 16:30 Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.
Matthew 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;
Rev. 7:1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree.
Psalm 103:12 As far as the east is from the west, so far has he removed our transgressions from us.
[28] Modern astronomy has provided overwhelming evidence that this model is false. The spherical shape of the earth was established with certainty by Hellenistic astronomers in the 3rd century BCE. The heliocentric nature of the solar system was conclusively established in the 16th century CE. Many modern Christians and Jews assert that these passages are written as metaphorical or phenomenological descriptions and not meant to be taken literally.[29] This response is intuitive given the modern prevalence of the expression "the sun rises" despite that it is common knowledge in the English speaking world that the sun does not, in fact, rise.
Another common point of criticism regards the Genesis creation narrative. According to young Earth creationism, which takes a literal view of the book of Genesis, the universe and all forms of life on Earth were created directly by God sometime between 5,700 and 10,000 years ago. (The Bible traces back to Adam's creation around 4000 BCE. There is debate over the 24 hour earth-days in which the earth was created as only on the fourth day were the sun, moon and stars created - without the sun a 24 hour earth-day is impossible. Genesis 1:16-19) This assertion is contradicted by radiocarbon dating of fossils, as well as modern understanding of genetics, evolution, and cosmology.[30] For instance, astrophysical evidence suggests that the universe is approximately 13.8 billion years old.[31] Moreover, it would require an impossibly high rate of mutation to account for the current amount of genetic variation in humans if all humans were descended from two individuals several thousand years ago.[32]
The argument that the literal story of Genesis can qualify as science collapses on three major grounds: the creationists' need to invoke miracles in order to compress the events of the earth's history into the biblical span of a few thousand years; their unwillingness to abandon claims clearly disproved, including the assertion that all fossils are products of Noah's flood; and their reliance upon distortion, misquote, half-quote, and citation out of context to characterize the ideas of their opponents.
— Bully for Brontosaurus by Stephen Jay Gould
Science-faith think tanks such as the Biologos foundation and Reasons to Believe have sought to reconcile these scientific challenges with the Christian faith.
The Bible and archaeology[edit]
Main articles: The Bible and history and Biblical archaeology
According to one of the world's leading biblical archaeologists, William G. Dever,
"Archaeology certainly doesn't prove literal readings of the Bible...It calls them into question, and that's what bothers some people. Most people really think that archaeology is out there to prove the Bible. No archaeologist thinks so."[33] From the beginnings of what we call biblical archeology, perhaps 150 years ago, scholars, mostly western scholars, have attempted to use archeological data to prove the Bible. And for a long time it was thought to work. William Albright, the great father of our discipline, often spoke of the "archeological revolution." Well, the revolution has come but not in the way that Albright thought. The truth of the matter today is that archeology raises more questions about the historicity of the Hebrew Bible and even the New Testament than it provides answers, and that's very disturbing to some people.[34]
Dever also wrote:
Archaeology as it is practiced today must be able to challenge, as well as confirm, the Bible stories. Some things described there really did happen, but others did not. The biblical narratives about Abraham, Moses, Joshua and Solomon probably reflect some historical memories of people and places, but the 'larger than life' portraits of the Bible are unrealistic and contradicted by the archaeological evidence....[35] I am not reading the Bible as Scripture&ldots; I am in fact not even a theist. My view all along—and especially in the recent books—is first that the biblical narratives are indeed 'stories,' often fictional and almost always propagandistic, but that here and there they contain some valid historical information...[36]
Tel Aviv University archaeologist Ze'ev Herzog wrote in the Haaretz newspaper:
This is what archaeologists have learned from their excavations in the Land of Israel: the Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the 12 tribes of Israel. Perhaps even harder to swallow is that the united monarchy of David and Solomon, which is described by the Bible as a regional power, was at most a small tribal kingdom. And it will come as an unpleasant shock to many that the God of Israel, YHWH, had a female consort and that the early Israelite religion adopted monotheism only in the waning period of the monarchy and not at Mount Sinai.[37][38]
Professor Finkelstein, who is known as "the father of biblical archaeology", told the Jerusalem Post that Jewish archaeologists have found no historical or archaeological evidence to back the biblical narrative on the Exodus, the Jews' wandering in Sinai or Joshua's conquest of Canaan. On the alleged Temple of Solomon, Finkelstein said that there is no archaeological evidence to prove it really existed.[39] Professor Yoni Mizrahi, an independent archaeologist who has worked with the International Atomic Energy Agency, agreed with Israel Finkelstein.[39]
Regarding the Exodus of Israelites from Egypt, Egyptian archaeologist Zahi Hawass said:
“Really, it’s a myth,”... “This is my career as an archaeologist. I should tell them the truth. If the people are upset, that is not my problem.”[40]
Unfulfilled prophecies[edit]
See also: Bible prophecy
The alleged fulfillment of biblical prophecies is a popular argument used as evidence by Christian apologists to support the claimed divine inspiration of the Bible. They see the fulfillment of prophecies as proof of God's direct involvement in the writing of the Bible.[41]
Messianic prophecies[edit]
See also: Jesus and messianic prophecy and Judaism's view of Jesus
According to Christian apologists, the alleged fulfillment of the messianic prophecies in the mission, death, and resurrection of Jesus proves the accuracy of the Bible. However, according to Jewish scholars, Christian claims that Jesus is the messiah of the Hebrew Bible are based on mistranslations[42][43][44] and Jesus did not fulfill the qualifications for Jewish Messiah.
An example of this is Isaiah 7:14. Christians read Isaiah 7:14 as a prophetic prediction of Jesus' birth from a virgin, while Jews read it as referring to the birth of Ahaz's son, Hezekiah.[45][46] They also point out that the word Almah, used in Isaiah 7:14, is part of the Hebrew phrase ha-almah hara, meaning "the almah is pregnant." Since the present tense is used, they maintain that the young woman was already pregnant and hence not a virgin. This being the case, they claim the verse cannot be cited as a prediction of the future.[46][47]
Prophecies after the event[edit]
Main articles: Postdiction and Vaticinium ex eventu
An example of an alleged after-the-fact prophecy is the Little Apocalypse recorded in the Olivet Discourse of the Gospel of Mark. It predicts the siege of Jerusalem and destruction of the Jewish Temple at the hands of the Romans in 70 AD. Most mainstream New Testament scholars concede this is an ex eventu (foretelling after the event), as are many of the prophecies in the Old Testament such as Daniel 11.[48][49][50][51][52][53][54]
Another example is Isaiah's prophecy about Cyrus the Great. Traditionally, the entire book of Isaiah is believed to pre-date the rule of Cyrus by about 120 years. These particular passages (Isaiah 40-55, often referred to as Deutero-Isaiah) are believed by most modern critical scholars to have been added by another author toward the end of the Babylonian exile (ca. 536 BC).[55] Whereas Isaiah 1-39 (referred to as Proto-Isaiah) saw the destruction of Israel as imminent, and the restoration in the future, Deutero-Isaiah speaks of the destruction in the past (Isa 42:24-25), and the restoration as imminent (Isiah 42:1-9). Notice, for example, the change in temporal perspective from (Isiah 39:6-7), where the Babylonian Captivity is cast far in the future, to (Isaiah 43:14), where the Israelites are spoken of as already in Babylon.[56]
The success of Joshua[edit]
The Book of Joshua describes the Israelite conquest of Canaan under the leadership of Joshua, the son of one of the aides to Moses. After Moses' death, God tells Joshua to conquer Canaan and makes predictions of his success.[57] Amongst other things, Joshua was to be given a vast dominion that included all of the Hittite land, and the advantage of facing no one who could stand up to him.
While the Book of Joshua delineates many successful conquerings, the Canaanites were not amongst those conquered and the Israelites did suffer defeat. Judah, a leader of one of the twelve tribes of Israel, is unable to dislodge the Jebusites from Jerusalem and was forced to cohabit,[58] while the Manassites, another of the twelve tribes, lack the strength to occupy several Canaan towns.[59] Other bastions of resistance dot the landscape.[60][61] Even after Joshua's death, the land is only partially conquered with the Canaanites remaining a significant external threat.[62][63][64] Critics argue that Joshua never lives to see the full territory God promises him and that the substantial resistance put up by the indigenous population violates God's promise of battles in which no enemy was his equal.
The destruction of Tyre[edit]
Tyre harbourEzekiel predicts that the ancient city of Tyre will be utterly destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar and "made a bare rock" that will "never be rebuilt" (Ezekiel 26:1, 26:7-14). However, Tyre withstood Nebuchadrezzar's siege for 13 years, ending in a compromise in which the royal family was taken into exile but the city survived intact.
Apologists cite the text as saying that the prophecy states that "many nations" would accomplish the destruction of Tyre, and claim that this refers to later conquerors (Ezekiel 26:3), but skeptics[65][66] counter that this was a reference to the "many nations" of Nebuchadrezzar's multinational force (Nebuchadrezzar was described by Ezekiel as "king of kings", i.e., an overking, a ruler over many nations), and that subsequent conquerors didn't permanently destroy Tyre either (it is now the fourth-largest city in Lebanon). Ezekiel himself admitted later that Nebuchadnezzar could not defeat Tyre (Ezekiel 29:18). Ezekiel said Egypt would be made an uninhabited wasteland for forty years (Ezekiel 29:10-14), and Nebuchadrezzar would be allowed to plunder it (Ezekiel 29:19-20) as compensation for his earlier failure to plunder Tyre (see above). However, the armies of Pharaoh Amasis II defeated the Babylonians. History records that this Pharaoh (also known as Ahmose II) went on to enjoy a long and prosperous reign; Herodotus writes that:
It is said that it was during the reign of Ahmose II that Egypt attained its highest level of prosperity both in respect of what the river gave the land and in respect of what the land yielded to men and that the number of inhabited cities at that time reached in total 20,000.[67]
The prophecy in chapter 29 dates in December 588—January 587. 20 years later, in the year 568, Nebuchadnezzar attacked Egypt.[68] F.F. Bruce writes still more exactly that the Babylonian king invaded Egypt already after the siege of Tyre 585—573 BC and replaced the Pharaoh Hophra (Apries) by Amasis:
The siege of Tyre was followed by operations against Egypt itself. Hophra was defeated, deposed and replaced by Amasis, an Egyptian general. But in 568 BC Amasis revolted against Nebuchadnezzar, who then invaded and occupied part of the Egyptian frontier lands.[69]
Flavius Josephus even writes in his Antiquities, citing the 4th century Greek writer Megasthenes that Nebuchadnezzar had control of all northern Africa unto present day Spain:
Megasthenes also, in his fourth book of his Accounts of India, makes mention of these things, and thereby endeavours to show that this king (Nebuchadnezzar) exceeded Hercules in fortitude, and in the greatness of his actions; for he saith that he conquered a great part of Libya and Iberia.[70]
On the other hand Nebuchadnezzar makes no mention of this campaign against Egypt in his inscriptions, at least that are currently known. It is too simple to argue with Herodotus, especially because his credibility was ever since contested.[71] The forty years are not to understand as an exact number. This figure became a significant period of chastisement to the Hebrews remembering the forty years in the desert after the exodus from Egypt.[72]
The protection of the King of Judah[edit] Isaiah spoke of a prophecy God made to Ahaz, the King of Judah that he would not be harmed by his enemies (Isaiah 7:1-7), yet according to 2 Chronicles, the king of Aram and Israel did conquer Judah (2 Chronicles 28:1-6).
In Isaiah (Isaiah 7:9) the prophet says clearly that a prerequisite for the fulfillment of the prophecy is that Ahaz stands firm in his faith. F.F. Bruce claims that this means Ahaz should trust God and not seek military help in the Assyrians, which Ahaz did.[73]
The death of the king of Judah[edit] In predicting Jerusalem's fall to Babylon, Jeremiah prophesied that Zedekiah, the king of Judah, would "die in peace" (Jeremiah 34:2-5). However, according to Jeremiah (Jeremiah 52:9-11), he was put in prison until the day of his death.
Apologists maintain that Zedekiah did not suffer the same terrible death as all the other nobles of Judah did when Nebuchadnezzar killed them in Riblah. Jeremiah also told Zedekiah in his prophecy that he would have to go to Babylon, which the Apologists claim implies that he will be imprisoned. There are no historical records of what happened with Zedekiah in Babylon[74] and a peaceful death is not ruled out.[citation needed]
The death of Josiah[edit] Prophetess Huldah prophesied that Josiah would die in peace (2 Kings 22:18-20), but rather than dying in peace, as the prophetess predicted, Josiah was probably killed at Megiddo in a battle with the Egyptian army (2 Chronicles 35:20-24).[75]
Apologists allege that the prophecy of Huldah was partially fulfilled because Josiah did not see all the disaster the Babylonians brought over Jerusalem and Judah. The prophetess clearly stated that because of Josiah's repentance, he will be buried in peace. But the king did not keep his humble attitude. As mentioned in 2 Chronicles (2 Chronicles 35:22), he did not listen to God's command and fought against the Egyptian pharaoh Necho. It is quite possible that he did this "opposing the faithful prophetic party".[76] Prophecy in the biblical sense is except in some very few cases never a foretelling of future events but it wants to induce the hearers to repent, to admonish and to encourage respectively; biblical prophecy includes almost always a conditional element.[77]
Map showing the borders of the Promised Land, based on God's promise to Abraham in Genesis 15:18-21: In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:The Kenites, and the Kenizzites, and the Kadmonites, And the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Rephaims, And the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Girgashites, and the Jebusites. The land promised to Abraham[edit]
Main article: Promised Land According to Genesis and Deuteronomy (Genesis 15:18, 17:8 and Deuteronomy 1:7-8), Abraham and his descendants, the Israelites will unconditionally (Deuteronomy 9:3-7) own all the land between the Nile River and the Euphrates River for an everlasting possession. But a critic says it never happened, that they never owned all that land forever.[78]
An apologist's counter-claim would be that a reading of Davidic conquests tells of the Israelite occupation of all the promised lands. F.F. Bruce writes:
David's sphere of influence now extended from the Egyptian frontier on the Wadi el-Arish (the "brook of Egypt") to the Euphrates; and these limits remained the ideal boundaries of Israel's dominion long after David's empire had disappeared.[79]
Acts 7:5 and Hebrews 11:13 are taken out of context if used as evidence against the fulfillment of these prophecies. Stephen does not state in Acts that the prophecy was not fulfilled. Moreover, it does not seem any problem for him to mention side by side the promise to Abraham himself and that Abraham did not get even a foot of ground. This becomes understandable with the concept of corporate personality. Jews are familiar with identifying individuals with the group they belong to. H. Wheeler Robinson writes that
Corporate personality is the important Semitic complex of thought in which there is a constant oscillation between the individual and the group—family, tribe, or nation—to which he belongs, so that the king or some other representative figure may be said to embody the group, or the group may be said to sum up the host of individuals.[80]
The letter to the Hebrews speaks about the promise of the heavenly country (Hebrews 11:13-16).
The fate of Damascus[edit] According to Isaiah 17:1, "Damascus will no longer be a city but will become a heap of ruins", but in fact Damascus is considered among the oldest continually inhabited cities in the world.
An apologist's response to this statement is that this verse refers to the destruction of Damascus as a strong capital of Syria. This was fulfilled during the Syro-Ephraimite War.
The prophecy perhaps dates from about 735 BC, when Damascus and Israel were allied against Judah (Isaiah 7:1). Damascus was taken by Tiglath-Pileser in 732, and Samaria by Sargon in 721.[81]
The passage is consistent with 2 Kings 16:9, which states that Assyria defeated the city and exiled the civilians to Kir.
The fate of Jews who stay in Egypt[edit] According to Jeremiah 42:17, Jews who choose to live in Egypt will all die and leave no remnant. But history shows that Jews continued to live there for centuries, later establishing a cultural center at Alexandria. A Jewish community exists at Alexandria even to this day.[82]
According to apologists, a more thorough examination of the surrounding text suggests that Jeremiah is stating that no refugees who flee to Egypt would return to Israel except for few fugitives. Jeremiah 42-44 had relevance mainly to the group of exiles who fled to Egypt. It emphasizes that the future hopes of a restored Israel lay elsewhere than with the exiles to Egypt.[83]
The return of Jewish prisoners of war[edit] Isaiah and Jeremiah (Isaiah 27:12-13, Jeremiah 3:18, Jeremiah 31:1-23, and Jeremiah 33:7) predicted the return of the exiles taken from Israel by the Assyrians in 722 BC. It never happened. Following the conquest of the northern kingdom by the Assyrians in 721 BC, the 10 tribes were gradually assimilated by other peoples and thus disappeared from history.[84] Unlike the Kingdom of Judah, which was able to return from its Babylonian Captivity in 537 BC, the 10 tribes of the Kingdom of Israel never had a foreign edict granting permission to return and rebuild their homeland. Assyria has long since vanished, its capital, Nineveh, destroyed in 612 BC.
Apologists, however, charge that Luke 2:36 states that Anna the Prophetess, daughter of Phanuel of the tribe of Asher, was living as a widow in the sanctuary ministering to God with and fastings and petitions night and day. Thus, at least some (tiny) portion of Israel returned, since it was unlikely that a lone female would return to the land of Israel unaccompanied by kinsmen as safe escort.
Although the exiled Israelites from the Northern kingdom did not return from Assyria, apologists state that it must be considered that these passages also contain the expectation of the messianic days. Theologians point out that in Isaiah 27:12-13 Euphrates and the Wadi of Egypt represent the northern and southern borders of the Promised Land in its widest extent (Genesis 15:18) and thus they refer these verses to the return of the Israelites to Jerusalem in the last days, in the messianic time. Israelites will be gathered from wherever they have been expelled from the north, Assyria, to the south, Egypt.[85] Jeremiah's prophecy of Israel's and Judah's return from the north in Jeremiah 3:18 is preceded by the request of Yahweh to the Israelites to come back (verse 14). After fulfilling this condition God will increase their number and none will miss the ark of the covenant (verse 16). All nations will then honour the Lord (verse 17). Consequently Christian scholars refer verse 18 to messianic times when there will be a kingdom united as in the days of David and Solomon.[86] Jeremiah 31 should be seen in context with chapter 30. Some scholars argue that these chapters were written early in Jeremiah's ministry and refer to Northern Israel. Later these poems were updated and referred to Judah as well, probably by Jeremiah himself, when it was realized that Judah had passed through similar experiences to those of Israel.[87] The Book of Consolation (Jeremiah 30:1—31:40) reaches his final, messianic scope in the establishment of a New Covenant between Yahweh and the House of Israel and the House of Judah.[88]
The strength of Judah[edit] Isaiah 19:17 predicted that "the land of Judah shall be a terror unto Egypt". Assuming that the 'terror' implied was a large-scale military attack of Egypt, it never happened.
According to theologians, the statement that the "land of Judah" will terrify the Egyptians is not a reference to a large army from Judah attacking Egypt, but a circumlocution for the place where God lives; it is God and his plans that will terrify Egypt. Verse 17 has to be understood in its context. The second "in that day" message from verse 18 announces the beginning of a deeper relationship between God and Egypt, which leads to Egypt's conversion and worshiping God (verses 19-21). The last "in that day" prophecy (verses 23-25) speaks about Israel, Assyria and Egypt as God's special people, thus, describing eschatological events.[89][90]
The identity of the conquerors of Babylon[edit] Isaiah 13:17, Isaiah 21:2, Jeremiah 51:11, and Jeremiah 51:27-28 predicted that Babylon would be destroyed by the Medes, Ararat, Minni and Ashkenaz and Elamites. The Persians under Cyrus the Great captured Babylon in 539 BC. Daniel 5:31 incorrectly stated that it was Darius the Mede who captured Babylon.
Christian apologists state that the prophecy in Isaiah 13:21 could possibly have been directed originally against Assyria, whose capital Ninive was defeated 612 BC by a combined onslaught of the Medes and Babylonians. According to this explanation the prophecy was later updated and referred to Babylon[91] not recognizing the rising power of Persia. On the other hand it can be mentioned that the Persian king Cyrus after overthrowing Media in 550 BC did not treat the Medes as a subject nation.
Instead of treating the Medes as a beaten foe and a subject nation, he had himself installed as king of Media and governed Media and Persia as a dual monarchy, each part of which enjoyed equal rights.[92]
Jeremiah prophesied at the height of the Median empire's power, and thus he was probably influenced to see the Medes as the nation that will conquer Babylon. Several proposals were brought forth for "Darius the Mede" out of which one says that Cyrus the Great is meant in Daniel 5:31.
Jehoiakim prophecies[edit] The prophet Daniel states that in the third year of the reign of King Jehoiakim, Nebuchadnezzar conquered Judah (Daniel 1:1-2). The third year of Jehoiakim's reign was 605 BC, at which time Nebuchadnezzar was not yet king of Babylon. It was in 597 BC that Nebuchadnezzar takes Jerusalem, by then Jehoiakim had died.
Apologists respond that this is not a prophecy but a statement. Daniel 1:1 is a problem of dating. But already F.F. Bruce solved this problem explaining that when Nebuchadnezzar, son of king Nabopolassar, was put in charge over a part of his forces, he defeated Necho in the battle of Carchemish 605 BC. In this situation his father Nabopolassar died. Before Nebuchadnezzar as heir apparent returned to Babylon he settled the affairs in the Asiatic countries bordering the Egyptian frontier, which means also Judah, and took captives from several countries as, for example, also from the Jews.[93] Jeremiah prophesied that the body of Jehoiakim, king of Judah, would be desecrated after his death (Jeremiah 22:18-19, Jeremiah 36:30-31). However, his death was recorded in 2 Kings 24:6 where it says that "Jehoiakim slept with his fathers". This is a familiar Bible expression that was used to denote a peaceful death and respectful burial. David slept with his fathers (1 Kings 2:10) and so did Solomon (1 Kings 11:43). On the other hand, 2 Chronicles 36:5-6 states that Nebuchadnezzar came against Jehoiakim, bound him in fetters, and carried him to Babylon. Judging from the treatment Zedekiah was accorded when the Babylonians bound him and carried him away to Babylon (Jeremiah 52:9-11), one might justifiably argue that his body probably was desecrated after his death. Jeremiah, however, predicted that Jehoiakim's own people would be his desecraters, that his own people would not accord him lamentations appropriate for a king, that his own people would cast his body "out beyond the gates of Jerusalem".
Apologists proposal for a partial solution:
In the 7th year of his reign, in the month of Kislev (December/January 598/97), Nebuchadnezzar himself left Babylon and undertook the subjection of rebellious Judah. In that same month, King Jehoiakim died in Jerusalem. (On the basis of a comparison with 2 Kings 24:6,8,10ff, with the Babylonian Chronicle, Wiseman 73, lines 11-13, Kislev is the ninth month. In the twelfth month, Adar, Jerusalem was taken. Jehoiachin's reign falls in these three months.) It is not impossible that he was murdered by a political faction who thereby sought more mild treatment for their country. His 18-year old son Jehoiachin was raised to the throne (2 Kings 24:8). Three months later Jerusalem was entirely surrounded by Babylonians. Nebuchadnezzar laid siege to the city of Judah (al-ya-ahu-du), and on the second day of the month of Adar he comquered the city and took its king prisoner.[94]
Also F.F. Bruce writes that Jehoiakim died in Juda before the siege of Jerusalem began.[95] This would mean that Jehoiakim was desecrated after his death and in this way the prophecy of Jeremiah was fulfilled. The passage in 2 Chronicles 36:5-6 does not speak explicitly about Jehoiakim's death. Thus, it can be seen as a parallel to Daniel 1:1-2[96] which speaks about an event in the lifetime of the king of Judah (see paragraph above). 2 Kings 24:6, nevertheless, remains unclear. Part of the desecration prophecy was that Jehoiakim would "have no one to sit upon the throne of David" (Jeremiah 36:30), but this too was proven false. Upon Jehoiakim's death, his son Jehoiachin "reigned in his stead" for a period of three months and ten days (2 Chronicles 36:8-9, 2 Kings 24:6-8). Also, there are biblical genealogies that purport to show Jehoiakim as a direct ancestor of Jesus (1 Chronicles 3:16-17, Matthew 1:11-12).[75]
Apologists say that if Jehoiakim had not been killed by his own people, on the condition that this supposition is true (see preceding paragraph), in all likelihood, Jehoiakim would have been put to death by the Babylonians. The Israelites anticipated what Nebuchadnezzar intended to do. In this case, most probable, Jehoiakim's son Jehoiachin would not have become king and Jeremiah's prophecy would have been fulfilled in its full sense. Jehoiachin's successor, Zedekiah, was no descendant of Jehoiakim, but his brother.
The double reckoning of Jehoiachin in Matthew 1:11-12 is made possible by the fact that the same Greek name can translate the two similar Hebrew names Jehoiakim and Jehoiachin.[97] In this way in verse 11 Jehoiakim and in verse 12 Jehoiachin is meant. The verse Jeremiah 36:30 says that Jehoiakim's descendants will not be kings in Judah anymore. This does not mean that he cannot be an ancestor of the Messiah.
New Testament[edit]
The Wailing Wall by night. According to Luke 19:41-44: As he approached Jerusalem and saw the city, he wept over it and said, "If you, even you, had only known on this day what would bring you peace—but now it is hidden from your eyes. The days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment against you and encircle you and hem you in on every side. They will dash you to the ground, you and the children within your walls. They will not leave one stone on another, because you did not recognize the time of God's coming to you. Jesus said in Matt. 24:2; Mark 13:2; Luke 19:44; Luke 21:6 that "no stone" of Jerusalem or of the Second Temple would be left upon another. This prophecy failed, as the wailing wall (a remnant of the ancient wall that surrounded the Jewish Temple's courtyard,) still remains.
In reply, John Robinson writes that
it was the temple that perished by fire while the walls of the city were thrown down.[98]
The imminence of the second coming[edit]
See also: Second coming
Jesus prophesied that the second coming would occur during the lifetime of his followers and Caiphas, and immediately after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE (referred to as abomination of desolation in Matt 24:15).
For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father's glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done. I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom. (Matthew 16:27-28)
"When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. I tell you the truth, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes." (Matthew 10:23)
..Again the high priest (Caiphas) asked him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?""I am", said Jesus. "And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven." (Mark 14:61-62)
Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. "Do you see all these things?" he asked. "I tell you the truth, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down." As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. "Tell us", they said, "when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?" So when you see standing in the holy place 'the abomination that causes desolation,' spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand—then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. Let no one on the roof of his house go down to take anything out of the house. Pray that your flight will not take place in winter or on the Sabbath. For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now-and never to be equaled again. Immediately after the distress of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken. At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory. Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it is near, right at the door. I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. (Matthew 24)
(see also Mark 13:1-30, Luke 21:5-35, Mark 13:30-31, Mark 9:1, Luke 9:27, John 21:22, Matthew 26:62-64, Mark 14:62)
It may be argued that Jesus was not speaking of the second coming in Matthew 16:28 but instead referred to a demonstration of his or God's might; a viewpoint which allows the fulfillment of the prophesy through a variety of traumatic events, notably, the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in 70 AD. The temple's destruction is held by proponents to demonstrate that God was on the side of the Christian people rather than that of the Jews. However, at that time only some of Jesus' disciples still lived.[99] In the same way Matthew 10:23 should be understood.[100] Note, however, that this view (referred to as Preterism) is not the majority view among American denominations, especially by denominations that espouse Dispensationalism.[101][102][103] Furthermore it is a misunderstanding that Jesus meant Caiphas in Mark 14:62. The word "you will see" is in Greek "??es?e" [opsesthe, from the infinitive optomai],[104] which is plural and not singular. Jesus meant that the Jews, and not just the high priest, will see his coming.
This prophecy is also seen in the Revelation of Jesus to John.
The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John,... Look, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him; and all the peoples of the earth will mourn because of him. So shall it be! Amen. (Revelation 1:1,7)
"Behold, I am coming soon! Blessed is he who keeps the words of the prophecy in this book. ... Behold, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to everyone according to what he has done." ... He who testifies to these things says, "Yes, I am coming soon." Amen. Come, Lord Jesus. (Revelation 22:7,12,20)
Despite the strongly repeated promises to the seven churches of Asia (Revelation 1:4,11) in the 1st century CE, Jesus has not come quickly or shortly according to critics.
Apologists respond that the word "soon" (other translations use "shortly" or "quickly") does not have to be understood in the sense of close future. The Norwegian scholar Thorleif Boman explained that the Israelites, unlike Europeans or people in the West, did not understand time as something measurable or calculable according to Hebrew thinking but as something qualitative.
We have examined the ideas underlying the expression of calculable time and more than once have found that the Israelites understood time as something qualitative, because for them time is determined by its content.[105]
...the Semitic concept of time is closely coincident with that of its content without which time would be quite impossible. The quantity of duration completely recedes behind the characteristic feature that enters with time or advances in it. Johannes Pedersen comes to the same conclusion when he distinguishes sharply between the Semitic understanding of time and ours. According to him, time is for us an abstraction since we distinguish time from the events that occur in time. The ancient Semites did not do this; for them time is determined by its content.[106]
In this way expressions of time, such as "soon", do not mean that the denoted event will take place in close future but that it will be the next significant event.[107]
The Apostle Paul also predicted that the second coming would be within his own lifetime, 1 Thessalonians 4:17:
After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever.
[108]
The philosopher Porphyry (232-305 CE), in his Kata Christianon (Against the Christians), a book burned and banned by the church in 448 CE writes of Paul:
Another of his astonishingly silly comments needs to be examined: I mean that wise saying of his, to the effect that, We who are alive and persevere shall not precede those who are asleep when the lord comes—for the lord himself will descend from heaven with a shout... and the trumpet of god shall sound, and those who have died in Christ shall rise first- then we who are alive shall be caught up together with them in a cloud to meet the lord in the air... Indeed—there is something here that reaches up to heaven: the magnitude of this lie. When told to dumb bears, to silly frogs and geese—they bellow or croak or quack with delight to hear of the bodies of men flying through the air like birds or being carried about on the clouds. This belief is quackery of the first rate.
The apologists answer for the passage in 1 Thessalonians 4:17 is that Paul speaks about his own presence at the last day only hypothetically. He identifies himself with those Christians who will still live in the time of Jesus' return but does not want to express that he himself will still experience this.[109] That becomes fully clear some verses later in which he says that the Day of the Lord comes like a thief (1 Thessalonians 5:1-2). The comparison of the Day of the Lord with a thief is a word of Jesus himself (Matthew 24:43-44), which expresses the impossibility to say anything about the date of his second coming (Matthew 24:36).
Notable critics[edit] Isaac Asimov Richard Dawkins Albert Einstein [110] Christopher Hitchens Robert G. Ingersoll[111] Thomas Paine Bertrand Russell Mark Twain Voltaire
See also[edit] Bible conspiracy theory Criticism of the Book of Mormon Criticism of the Talmud Criticism of the Qur'an Christ myth theory Misquoting Jesus Tahrif
This page was created 3/16/15
This site is maintained for research
purposes only.
The
Influence is designed and maintained by
Jon Anderson I make no claim to be an expert pertaining to the knowledge and information of God and religion and all that which relates to God and religion. I make no claims, promises or guarantees about the completeness or adequacy of the information contained in or linked to this website and its associated sites. Nothing on this site constitutes legal or medical advice. This website is an unofficial source of news and information continually updated from thousands of sources around the net. This website is the composition of many hours of research. Information contained within this site has come from numerous sources such as websites, newspapers, books, and magazines. This site represents some of my research, thoughts and ideas regarding God, the Bible and religion(s). Do not take anything on this site as the "Gospel Truth." I encourage you to be a "good Berean" and study these things out for yourself to come to your own conclusions.
In case the article on this page was quoted from
another source, the following statement applies: By printing, downloading, or using any info from this site, you agree to our full terms. Review the full terms by clicking here. Below is a summary of some of the terms. If you do not agree to the full terms, do not use the information. All information on this web site is provided as a free service. Under no conditions does it constitute professional advice. No representations are made as to the completeness, accuracy, comprehensiveness or otherwise of the information provided. This site is considered publishers of this material, not authors. Information may have errors or be outdated. Some information is from historical sources or represents opinions of the author. It is for research purposes only. The information is "AS IS", "WITH ALL FAULTS". User assumes all risk of use, damage, or injury. You agree that we have no liability for any damages. We are not liable for any consequential, incidental, indirect, or special damages. You indemnify us for claims caused by you.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
