I believe in the Bible!

[PastorFreud]

What does this phrase mean? Well, it depends on many things. I thought I would start this thread to do a little study of the Bible. What are we believing in when we say the Bible is true?

Cannon=accepted as Scripture for guiding faith and practice

1. The OT Books
Oldest copies of the Pentateuch date between 1000 and 400 BCE. These 5 books, Genesis through Deuteronomy, are accepted by all Jews.

The books of the prophets were written between 700-400 BCE. These were accepted by Jews, but Samaritans did not accept all prophets as Scripture.

The Writings, including Chronicles and Song of Solomon, Proverbs, etc. were accepted as cannon by Jews in 2nd century BCE.

Apocrypha included Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, Letter of Jeremiah, 1 & 2 Maccabees, longer versions of Daniel & Esther

Other books pulished during this time included 1 Esdras, Prayer of Manasseh, Psalm 151, 3 & 4 Maccabees, 2 Esdras

When 1st Century Christians said "I believe in the Bible," what were they believing in? What language was it? Was it the same everywhere?

They were referring to the Greek version of the OT called the Septuagint, which included the 39 OT books plus the Apocrypha. Practically everyone used this text.

2. The NT books
All of these texts originated in the first and second centuries CE. There were MANY Books. The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Mary, Thomas, and James. Acts and the Acts of Paul and Thecla. Paul's writings and writings attributed to Paul. The Shepherd of Hermas. The Epistle of Barnabus, the Didache, and more.

If you went to an early church in the third century CE and asked to see their bible, you would get the Septuagint with Apocrypha translated from Hebrew into Greek, the Gospels and Acts, and some of Paul's letters in nearly every one. You would also get some of the others.

By the fourth century CE, the official cannon was decided for the Catholic (and some argue only at the time) church. They included the Septuagint with Apocrypha and the 27 books of the NT.

By the 5th century CE, during the time of St. Thomas Aquinas, the cannon was stable. You would get just about the same text in any church you asked for the Bible. But the Bible was translated into Latin from the Greek and Hebrew. You would get the Latin Vulgate, a version translated into the people's language at that time.

All the way until the 16th century, things stay pretty much the same. The Latin Vulgate version dominates, even though Latin becomes a dead language.

Although the Orthodox church separates from Catholic. Thier cannon includes the 39 OT books, the 27 NT, the Apocrypha, 1 Esdras, Prayer of Manasseh, Psalm 151 and 3 Maccabees. The Slavonic Othodox also includes 4 macabees.

In the 16th century CE, Luther "protests" against the Catholic church and begins the Protestant reformation. He includes the 39 OT books without the apocrypha, and the 27 NT books minus Revelation, James (which he thought should be used on the floor of animal stalls), Hebrews, and Jude (which he rejected because of the reference to Enoch, which had been rejected in 4th century). So if you asked for a Bible from Luther, that is what you would get and it would be in German, translated from Hebrew and Greek. Some Protestants, however, objected to the removal of the 4 books from the NT and returned to the Catholic NT.

Now, in the 21st century, most Protestants use the Protestant OT, (no apocrypha) and the Catholic NT. They have versions in any language you like, usually translated from the oldest Greek and Hebrew copies available. You'll find the same Bibles just about everywhere in Protestant faith.

So, "I believe in the Bible" can be a quite interesting statement to make.

I have done my best to provide a short, but accurate history here. If anyone has stuff to add or questions, go for it. And feel free to explain what you mean when you say, "I believe in the Bible."

[PastorFreud]

So how has the church interacted with this book called the Bible?

Roman Catholic & Orthodox Emphasis
* The Church Created the Bible as an expression of the Gospel, witnessing to Christ.
* Christ is the Living Word/Mass is the Acted Word. Participation in Mass is participation with Christ.
* Tradition determines our interpretation of the Bible (who is one individual to think they understand the Bible better than all who have studied before him or her.
* Tradition wins over any conflict in doctrine.

Classical Reformed & Lutheran Protestant Emphasis
* The ‘Gospel’ (as found within Bible) witnesses to God’s Revelation in Christ
* Christ is the Living Word/The Bible is the written Word of God
* Sola Scriptura, or the Bible alone, is the rule for life and faith. What the Bible says is supreme.
* What the Bible says wins over tradition in any conflict.

Wesleyan Protestant Emphasis
* The Gospel (as found within the Bible & Tradition) witnesses to God’s Revelation in Christ
* Christ is the Living Word/Personal encounter with Christ is to experience the Gospel
* Scripture, tradition, reason, and experience are all valid tools for understanding what should be the rule for life and faith.
* The Bible is interpreted in light of tradition, reason, and experience. While it is possible that some new teaching has merit, it is unlikely that any new teaching would conflict with tradition. Any conflict is resolved through careful use of all resources. The Bible prevails ultimately when necessary.

Fundamentalist Protestant Emphasis
* The Bible is the Gospel
* The written word is God revealed
* Scripture alone is the rule for life and faith
* The Bible speaks for God, thus whatever the Bible is perceived to be saying is supreme and trumps reason, tradition, and experience.

Here again, in summarizing some important points may be lost. Additions, corrections, challenges?[/list]

[grant]

I was under the impression that the "deuterocanonical books" were slipped into the Catholic Bible despite some comments by St. Jerome, who did the translating from Hebrew and Greek into Latin... and were subsequently taken out of Protestant Bibles on the weight of those comments.

What's the deal with that? What's the difference between "deuterocanonical" and "apocryphal"?

----

Also, if I were to go into a 3rd century CE church in, say, Ethiopa (hi, cenobites!) would their text of the Bible be the same as one in, oh, a cathedral in Constantinople, or in a missionary's kit in southern France?
Was the Bible standardized then... of was it more likely that scholars would be aware of texts that weren't necessarily included in their copy?

I'm thinking back to lectures I had in Middle English, where we discussed differences in the way books were treated. A good library might have 12 volumes -- each one written out by hand on flattened animal hides, more than likely. Many texts will have been revised by scribes, editors and other authorities hoping to get to the 'true essence' of the original (which, in many cases, may have been badly damaged or illegible).

And that was in the 1200s... nine centuries later on. I imagine in the 3rd century, they might not even have used bound books most of the time, but just bundled scrolls together (although this is just guessing on my part).

[PastorFreud]

Grant, your understanding is pretty close to mine. I didn't go into all the details. And I only presented one view. If you were Othrodox, for example, you would have a slightly different argument, one that would explain why the choice was made to keep certain books in the cannon.

I think deuterocanonical and apocryphal mean the same thing, but I'll look into it. In giving a general history, I did not explain that there were always sects with differences. Some became very attached to certain books. They would not have included them in the same set of volumes, but would have copies somewhere.

By the end of the fourth century CE, the official cannon was widely accepted. I think third century CE was a time when everyone had some of the same basic texts, like the 39 OT and about 12 of the NT, but after that there were wide variations.

Some churches would have Scriptures with all the official texts, then extras at the end. A table of contents would not reflect that the extras existed, but they were there.

I find in interesting at [eeriesound] the other place [/eeriesound] when Catholics are bashed using the Scripture. For 16 centuries, Catholic and Orthodox churches were the only ones around and responsible for preserving the text. Protestantism is a relatively younger movement. Just shows how ignorant many are regarding church history. The other thing I have found is that most educated Catholics are proufoundly humble. Their acceptance of tradition is not "blindly following the pope," but recognizing that their private interpretation of Scripture is likely to be less reliable than the tradition of the church.

[crossandflame]

Wesleyan Protestant Emphasis
* The Gospel (as found within the Bible & Tradition) witnesses to God’s Revelation in Christ
* Christ is the Living Word/Personal encounter with Christ is to experience the Gospel
* Scripture, tradition, reason, and experience are all valid tools for understanding what should be the rule for life and faith.
* The Bible is interpreted in light of tradition, reason, and experience. While it is possible that some new teaching has merit, it is unlikely that any new teaching would conflict with tradition. Any conflict is resolved through careful use of all resources. The Bible prevails ultimately when necessary.

For the most part, that is accurate Just wanted to give a methodist stamp of approval.

[PastorFreud]

Thanks, Cross!

I am not Wesleyan Methodist, but I was for many years. I thought I got it right.

I am wondering how many people here did not realize that the "Bible" they have has gone through many processes.

[jonesy]

How do you know that first century Christians said they believe in the bible? I don't believe the bible was compiled and canonized until several centuries later.....

[jonesy]

I find in interesting at [eeriesound] the other place [/eeriesound] when Catholics are bashed using the Scripture.

I haven't been there much lately P F, but I know one horrible site for Catholic bashing is Walter Martin's web site. He's passed on but they still have a web site based on his work with cults. He essentially felt that Catholics were a cult.

I don't believe that for a moment. I disagree with some of their doctrine personally, but I believe that there are plenty of great Christians in the Catholic ranks. My boss is one of them. But there are plenty more and I despise Catholic bashing.

[PastorFreud]

How do you know that first century Christians said they believe in the bible? I don't believe the bible was compiled and canonized until several centuries later.....

We know what the first century groups had and used as Scripture because of copies that are available.

1st Century, of course, only had OT scriptures, which included most apocrypha. The earliest date for manuscripts of other books is around 70 CE. 2nd and 3rd Century Christians used as Scripture the OT plus about 13 undisputed texts from the NT. The remaining 14 in our current cannon were used or not used depending on where you went. You would also find several books that are not in our current cannon.

By 4th Century we had the consensus with OT plus apocrypha and 27 NT books. This is known by studying and comparing manuscripts found in various churches. There are several books available from reputable Christian scholars explaining the details, but what I have presented here is widely accepted among Christians who have studied the topic.

[jonesy]

Oh okay,

I thought you were lumping NT scriptures in there for the 1st century too. Thanks for clearing that up.

[Life Uncommon]

This is a good post - very educational and insightful.
I shall post more later.

[grant]

Research hat on:

Here's a site with links to deuterocanonical books, but it seems to make the term equal to "Old Testament apocrypha," and I'm not sure it's quite the same.

--------------

This site, "What are Deuterocanonical Books?", includes links along with a pretty thorough discussion of what deuterocanonical actually means:

In about the 4th Century CE, as Greek began to die out of the Western Empire, there was a need for translation of the Christian Scriptures into Latin, the tongue of the common people of the West. The scholar Jerome undertook the task. Jerome used the best texts he could find (including Hebrew when available), and produced the so-called Vulgate bible. Jerome also counseled that the "deuterocanonical" Old Testament, that is, those books not available in Hebrew or not considered canonical by the Jews, were OK as models of faith and conduct, but should not be used to establish doctrine.

So what's the deal with the Jewish canon? From what this site says, in 90 CE (around 300 years before Jerome), a lot of Jews spoke Greek and didn't speak Hebrew. The scriptures used by Christian and Jewish churches were basically the same. The Jews got together and decided on a canon of scripture in Hebrew - the Masoretic text. This is basically identical to the Protestant Old Testament.

Jerome used the Masoretic text as authoritative, and wasn't so sure about the older Greek texts. In other words, he seems to have been relying on Jewish authority in Old Testament matters. The problem is, some of those Jewish authorities weren't as accurate as they could have been:

...more recent manuscript discoveries indicate that the Greek versions of certain canonical books may be closer to the originals, in some respects, than the Masoretic Text.

The site does make clear that this is all about the Old Testament, and that New Testament Apocrypha (and some of the Old Testament Apocrypha) belong in a different category.

The footnotes to the essay might be the most useful parts to read, as far as this discussion goes, like this one:

Strictly speaking, the books which are accepted as canonical by some but not all of Christendom are called "Deuterocanonical," and the term "Apocrypha" should be reserved for Old and New Testament writings, such as The Shepherd of Hermas, which have been influential but are not accepted as canonical by any current Christian body. However, Protestants typically lump the Deuterocanonical Old Testament with truly noncanonical books, as "Old Testament Apocrypha." All of the books in the "Apocrypha" sections of Protestant bibles are accepted as canonical by at least one Christian body dating from before the Reformation.

The "Apocryphal" 1 Enoch, accepted as canonical only by the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, is cited by the canonical Letter of Jude.

The article also mentions the fact that the Eastern Orthodox Bible is even larger than the Roman Catholic Bible.

----------------

Here's a purty good essay (on geocities, sorry for the popups) on the history of the "Deuteros" as the author calls them.

The most interesting bit:

. I think
this distinction is the key to the controversy. We all accept the
Biblical books in a hierarchial fashion giving more weight to some books
than to others. For example, the Jews place the Torah in the place of
primacy. Catholics and Orthodox place the Gospels in that position.
Protestants generally place the epistles of St. Paul there (Lutherans in
particular use Romans and Galatians -- in that order -- as their primary
Biblical sources).

Since the Reformation, all sides have been reluctant to admit a "canon
within a canon" (except certain Lutherans who are quite open about
it). As such, in modern controversies, a book is considered either
inspired or not. If it is inspired than it has something to teach us. If it
isn't, then it can be ignored. This type of all-or-nothing approach is
really not the way the Early Church approached religious texts whether
canonical or not. (Look at the place of such works as the Shepherd of
Hermas, the Protoevangelium of James, or the Clementine Epistles.)

It seems like what this author's saying is that in the early church, the Bible wasn't treated as a single book as much as it was a library, or collection of books. And some of that attitude has persisted to the modern day, with some books being more "Biblical" than others.

----------------

Here is a very Catholic defense of the deuterocanonical books.

Here's a fairly representative quote, full of debate-style flourishes:

...Therefore, what the Jews may or may not have decided in a council after Christ, in 90 AD., is irrelevant. They had lost their status as the true religion when they rejected Jesus Christ. It has been the Catholic Church, from Pentecost on, which is the true and real "Jewish Church," that is the fulfillment and flower of Judaism, that which Judaism was meant to be.

Why is it that the Jews decided on considering only 39 books inspired? Because they knew that the Christians, their arch-enemies, were using the Greek version of the Scriptures (which included the deuterocanonical books!!), and they wanted to be sure to distinguish themselves clearly from the Christians. They wanted their own identity back. Besides, the deuterocanon contains many Christian prophecies and allusions to the New Testament, something the Jews could not stand at all! A perfect example would be Wisdom 2:10-24, which is the clearest prophecy about Jesus' passion in the entire Scriptures. The Jews, however, were anti-Christian! Indeed, the first Christians did use the deuterocanonical books. Proof of this can be found in art versions of the Scriptures (Vulgate, Syriac, and Coptic) as well as by looking at early Church liturgy.

I'd suggest not reading this if you don't have a high tolerance for the written version of jumping up and down and yelling, "See??SEE??" His historical facts are pretty good, though. I think.

----------

Here's a rather creepy, apocalyptic archive of many of these books. It's all green text on black backgrounds.

Actually, forget that one.
There's a better list here - it's easier to read, and has more of the texts.

I am curious, though, about the status of the Book of Enoch. It's referenced in the New Testament, but doesn't appear to be deuterocanonical on most of these lists. I guess the Coptic Church isn't really counted by most of these web authorities. But... wait!

------------

Lo! Behold, here's a rather thorough look at the deuterocanonical books from the perspective of the Coptic Orthodox "Church Arabic Version."

The author is, like the Catholics above, definitely out to prove a point. (I'm using italics where the page uses bold, purple type.)

In this regard it is worth mentioning that the Old Testament Books are categorized into two main sections:

* The first section is the first Canonical Books "PROTOKANONA".
* The second section is the Second Canonical Books "DEYTEROKANONIKA".

The first books were collated by Ezra the Priest, as mentioned in the Book of Macabees (Ch 2:10), we learn that Nehemiah established a library in which he collated the books of Kings and Prophets, the writings of David and the letters of Kings. This first group was divided into three sections (Torah, Nebeim, Ketebeim).

Neither Ezra nor Nehemiah made mention of the second group (DEYTEPOKANONIKA) as part of the first group, the reason being the books only appeared after Ezra's death who collated the first group.

Because these books, referred to above, were collated after Ezra's death, the early Christian church considered them as authentic -second canonical books as previously stated- the traditional Christian churched recognized them throughout the ages.

Gotta love them Arabic Christians.
There's some interesting history in there, as well as the claim that The Gospel of John references the Book of Maccabees, since that's where the "Feast of Dedication" in John 10:22 comes from.

[PastorFreud]

Good research, Grant. I think the argument being made sounds like dueterocanon (or 2nd canon) books are books that are considered canonical to some recognized group, whereas Apocrypha are considered non-canonical texts. Protestants call the extra OT books Apocrypha, but Catholics call them deuterocanon. Sound right?

Good research, but what does it all mean?? I liked the reality that the early church saw Scripture as a collection or library, not a single book. It drives me crazy today when people take the last bit of Revelation about "adding or taking away from this book" as referring to the whole canon. For one, that statement never referred to the canon, it only referred to itself. And for another, that statement is common language for an apocalypse. Revelation is a text that we have several copies of and can demonstrate that many of them are different. Guess people didn't take that statement literally.

Anyone else? What does all of this mean to you? I think it should cause us to be more careful when asserting doctrine of one sort or another. It is also helpful for us to see our Bible as a collection that speaks truth, but not in some monolithic fashion.

[grant]

...sounds like dueterocanon (or 2nd canon) books are books that are considered canonical to some recognized group, whereas Apocrypha are considered non-canonical texts. Protestants call the extra OT books Apocrypha, but Catholics call them deuterocanon. Sound right?

That sounds about right. If some "recognized" church has them in their Bible, then they're deuterocanon.

Good research, but what does it all mean??

That I know how to get the most out of Google.com and had an hour or so to kill.

No, seriously, I think it points to the Bible as a dynamic text. I was interested (not quite surprised) to read on a couple of those sites that the books of the Roman Catholic Bible were in the original edition of the King James Bible.

Maybe "Bible" is a misleading name, even. How did it first get called "Bible" - some sort of translation of the Hebrew word for "scripture" or something?

... I liked the reality that the early church saw Scripture as a collection or library, not a single book.

Yeah, the research does point that out. It also shows how tricky questions of "authority" are.

-Well, this one's authoritative because it's Hebrew!
-Well, THIS one's authoritative because IT'S Greek, and it's OLDER!!
-Oh yeah? That's not what St. Jerome said!
-Oh yeah? Well he didn't know that! So there!
-Oh YEAH?

and so on.

... And for another, that statement is common language for an apocalypse.

I really want to know more about poetic forms in the Bible.

...Revelation is a text that we have several copies of and can demonstrate that many of them are different. Guess people didn't take that statement literally.

Now that's a whole other ball of angry bees....

[seebs]

Curiously, those "extra" books were apparently in the 1611 KJV, but most KJV-onlyists would never, ever, ever, accept those books.

I would LOVE a KJV that had those books in it; I love the language, even as I hate the translation.

[PastorFreud]

Seebs, you might check out the Jerusalem Bible. I think it has the KJV flair and it definitely has the extra books.