History of the Bible: The Process That Put it Together

I'm slightly hesitant to post this up. Because sometimes I think it's better to leave a Christian person comfortable were they are at rather than to be part of a cause that shakes their faith to an extent they give up Christianity altogether. I think that can be a possible result when it hit with shock. People can have differing psychological responses. One person might convert, one person might remain comfortably where they are, another might give up everything and become jaded and atheist.

It has been said--logically--if you don't trust the authority of the Catholic or Orthodox Bishops then don't trust the Bible.

I accept the Bible because I accept Apostolic Succession. It's logically coherent in my mind.

Usually I post quotes from the links I post. But in this case I will just post the links because if there is a Protestant, or fallen away Protestant that reads the Bible but does not attending any Protestant Church, and are comfortable where they are at then don't click on the links. (if info interpreted possibly by you as disturbing might cause you to abandon all faith in God and Christ).




Link 1. Catholic source explaining the historical differences in the Biblical canons of the Orthodox from Catholic: Why does the Orthodox Bible have more books than the Catholic Bible?

Link 2. Orthodox source explaining why Martin Luther took some books out the Bible, and also gives where in the Catholic and Orthodox Biblical canons you can find Biblical references for prayers for the dead, intercession of saints, and so on: The Orthodox Bible - Orthodox Christian Resource Center



As an additional thing of interest possibly. Apparently, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church has the largest Biblical canon of any Christian Church.

Link 3. Ethiopian Orthodox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthodox_Tewahedo_biblical_canon

FastPace said:

I'm slightly hesitant to post this up. Because sometimes I think it's better to leave a Christian person comfortable were they are at rather than to be part of a cause that shakes their faith to an extent they give up Christianity altogether. I think that can be a possible result when it hit with shock. People can have differing psychological responses. One person might convert, one person might remain comfortably where they are, another might give up everything and become jaded and atheist.

It has been said--logically--if you don't trust the authority of the Catholic or Orthodox Bishops then don't trust the Bible.

I accept the Bible because I accept Apostolic Succession. It's logically coherent in my mind.

Usually I post quotes from the links I post. But in this case I will just post the links because if there is a Protestant, or fallen away Protestant that reads the Bible but does not attending any Protestant Church, and are comfortable where they are at then don't click on the links. (if info interpreted possibly by you as disturbing might cause you to abandon all faith in God and Christ).




Link 1. Catholic source explaining the historical differences in the Biblical canons of the Orthodox from Catholic: Why does the Orthodox Bible have more books than the Catholic Bible?

Link 2. Orthodox source explaining why Martin Luther took some books out the Bible, and also gives where in the Catholic and Orthodox Biblical canons you can find Biblical references for prayers for the dead, intercession of saints, and so on: The Orthodox Bible - Orthodox Christian Resource Center



As an additional thing of interest possibly. Apparently, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church has the largest Biblical canon of any Christian Church.

Link 3. Ethiopian Orthodox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthodox_Tewahedo_biblical_canon

Click to expand...

So you think that because there are gospels written that arent in the modern Catholic and Protestant Bible that will make people give up on Christianity? And you think that Catholics and Protestants dont already know this? :screwy

A person can have a world of knowledge at their fingertips...perhaps even read it...but without understanding/discernment, all that knowledge is valueless...

Elvira said:

A person can have a world of knowledge at their fingertips...perhaps even read it...but without understanding/discernment, all that knowledge is valueless...

Click to expand...

And can you show that you are the one with discernment, and the people who disagree with are not?

Crovax said:

So you think that because there are gospels written that arent in the modern Catholic and Protestant Bible that will make people give up on Christianity?

Click to expand...

I'm not a biblical theologian, so maybe I may be using or understanding terminology incorrectly, but I was reared Catholic and have even attended some modern Catholic Masses in the USA in which a book made up of the 4 Gospels is walked to the alter held high, at the beginning of Mass. The 4 Gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John hold place of scriptural prestige to Catholics and Orthodox apparently.

My point here is there are only 4 Gospel books. So far as I know, assuming I understand the terminology and or its usage correctly. At least theologically correctly. Archeological usage of the term might apply more broadly to non-biblical books.

But you misunderstood my points in post #1. I think broadly they had to do with:

(a) What logically follows from what.

(b) An issue of faith (in my case, and many in the Orthodox and Catholic communions, a faith in the proposition of "Apostolic Succession," ergo its authority to produce what we term "The Bible.")

(c) A psychological issue: that not all people respond the same way when confronted with events or information that runs in contradiction to their deepest held beliefs. Some (not all) people can possibly (meaning it *could* happen, but not that *it will* happen) be given such a shock to their core perception of the structures of truth or how things are built, that they may abandon all faith in God and Christ period.

And you think that Catholics and Protestants dont already know this? :screwy

Click to expand...

Again, I was reared Catholic. But I grew up around a lot of Protestants. There are instilled perceptual differences between the two. Related to written texts for example (this of course includes biblical and extra-biblical texts). If that is difficult to grasp because you're assuming Catholics (or Orthodox) naturally and quickly perceive written theological/religious texts the same way Protestants do then let me give an easier, more recognizable perceptual difference between the two groups for you.

The perceptual differences about prayer. Protestants instinctually think worship and perceive it only as a form of worship. The Catholic and Orthodox instinct of prayer is different and broader. It is first and foremost an application of mind and possibly "heart" to the super-natural or spiritual. It can come in form of meditation (rosary: on various "mysteries"), form of mantra (Oriental and Eastern Orthodox "Jesus prayer"), or "contemplative" (the emptying of the mind and of all notions of what God is), or the more commonly known form of *petitionary* prayer (communication with spiritual beings including God). But prayer can be (but does not have to be) a method of worshiping in the Catholic and Orthodox instinct (the purpose, intent matters).



In the philosophy of science, the philosophers of science have used visual illusion images to show how it is possible for two scientists to look at the same thing but perceive and see two different things. And I think it can be applied here to some extent, though imperfectly, to better help understand how Protestants might perceive the Bible differently than Catholics and Orthodox. Albeit, this illusion is an imperfect example and not directly analogous, due to the fact both Protestant and Catholics/Orthodox are indoctrinated (usually at early ages) how to perceive a thing, including the Bible.

Young Girl-Old Woman Illusion -- from Wolfram MathWorld

What do you see in the image below, a young woman or an old woman?

The canonization of OT is a job done by the Jewish. If follows a very strict control during the process. The process started with King Hezekiah. That's why 17 out of the 22 books are said to be with a seal of Hezekiah. They are believed to be last edited by Ezra after the Babylon exile. This is necessary possibly because the Scripture was not properly maintain during the exile with different versions emerged which required to be united into an authenticated copy (in the end authenticated by God through Ezra). The process last till Jesus time, back then the process was strictly supervised by the Sanhedrin (mainly enforced by the Pharisees having a seat or influence inside the Sanhedrin). The last several books were canonized in Aramaic instead of Hebrew because back in Jesus' time, Aramaic is a more common spoken language. The process completed around after Jesus' crucifixion. The rabbinic variance may have 24 books but with the same contents, it's just a matter of arranging the books differently possibly for the purpose of teaching. Today's Judaism was revived by a group of rabbis back in 200~300 AD, possibly that's why today's Jewish OT Bible has 24 books.

The Catholic and Eastern Orthodox versions of the OT is delivered from the Greek translation of the Hebrew books, which is, the Septuagint. The Septuagint contains books not in the Jewish Canon. More significantly is that the Septuagint is not maintained or authorized by any authorities. It is an uncontrolled translation/version. Its contents may deviate from the canonized Jewish OT version.

To put it another way, The Catholic was only given the authority to canonize the NT, it is the Jews who were given the authority to canonize the OT (the 22 book version, to be specific). The Jews were the designated representatives of God in terms of OT canonization. When the Jews went corrupted, God re-authenticated the Catholic for the Job of NT canonization. The Catholic just conveniently grabbed the unauthorized Septuagint (because back then it's the only widely used and accepted book in Greek). When the Catholic went corrupted, God re-authenticated the Protestants as the new keeper of the Bible. That's why today only the Protestants can have both a correct NT and a correct OT Canon.

This is the big picture. The Eastern Orthodox have a NT Bible with more books because they added some books from the earth fathers. It is thus not the Canon came up with by those early fathers. In a sense, the NT is the witnessing of Jesus Christ with a salvation theology crafted mainly by Paul. Early fathers will not be considered as the chosen witnesses for Jesus Christ, in terms of the crafting of NT. The books of the authenticated Canon are well mentioned in the letters of the early fathers, which has only the 27 books (in the Protestant and Catholic Canon). These 27 books were well canonized before the Catholic church being divided into the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox.

As for the OT, both the Catholic version and the Eastern Orthodox version are based off the Septuagint. Its contents are not maintained or controlled thus we can't tell what the 'original' Septuagint should look like due to the lack of an authenticated copy for us to reconcile its contents with.

That said, humans are never good keepers of original documents. We don't have the original documents for us to call them the Canon books. However God made the Bible perfect in that we reconcile its contents to tell that today's Bible (OT and NT Canons) remains the same Bible humans read 2000 years ago (at the point when the New Covenant dropped in). We have the Dead Sea Scrolls for us to reconcile to tell that the OT Bible we read today is the same OT Bible humans read 2000 years ago, though none of the books/scrolls we read can be considered original. Even the Dead Sea Scrolls are from a library of the Essene sect, instead of the authenticated books from the Sanhedrin.

Similarly, we have two independent sources of NT translations, namely the NIC and KJV translations, for us to tell that the NT contents remain the same NT humans read 2000 years ago. It is because these two independent translations are theologically identical. The KJV translation is from a version preserved by a church in Greek, while the NIV translation is delivered from two artifacts dated back in 4th century. We can reconcile to tell that the contents remain the same though none of these sources can be firmly considered as original (the KJV may have a chance, the NIV is from the artifacts being the copies of copies).

Hawkins,

Are you a Protestant or Jewish person? I'm hazarding a guess a Protestant judging by the 3rd sentence of your 2nd to last paragraph.

The declarative statement that the Old Testament can only be canonized by Jews, and the Bishops of the Apostolic Church have no authority to bind or loose on earth, no authority to canonize the Old Testament sounds like something that could only come from a Protestant or Jewish person.

The Orthodox link I provided gives passages in the New Testament, in the Gospels even, quoting the Old Testament texts the Jews and later Martin Luther stripped out of the Bible. The Jewish authorities did not exclude these books from the Old Testament until after the death and resurrection of Jesus. Might be why some of them followed Sabbatai Zevi as the Messiah in what was it, the 1800s? Until he went to Turkey and under the threat of Islamic archers was given two options, (1) convert to Islam and be spared the flight of their arrows, or (2) survive their arrows and thy and the whole of Islamic Turkey will bow down to him as the Messiah. He choose option 1 and converted to Islam.

He was no small figure and probably had far more followers of religious Jews than Jesus did.

Anyways, here is the traditional perception of Catholic Bishops and Orthodox Bishops around the world going back to the earliest days of the Church: Christians are the Israelite nation and all Jews who refused to accept Jesus are imposters to the claim and authority of that nation. And Christ is head of that Christian Church and has given his Apostles and their successor power to *bind* and *loose* on earth.

In other words the Jewish Messiah came. Those that follow him are successors to the ancient Jewish claim and all that refuse him are not.

Once the temple fell, once the priesthood of the Jews with sacrificial offerings disappeared, once Rabbinic Judaism emerged to replace it so ancient Judaism disappeared. The Priesthood of Christ with his Bishops presiding over an alter for the sacrificial offer is what remains of ancient Judaism. They are the cult of the Jewish Messiah who rose from the dead.






(Per my statement in green, on perception, above.)

FastPace said:

Hawkins,

Are you a Protestant or Jewish person? I'm hazarding a guess a Protestant judging by the 3rd sentence of your 2nd to last paragraph.

The declarative statement that the Old Testament can only be canonized by Jews, and the Bishops of the Apostolic Church have no authority to bind or loose on earth, no authority to canonize the Old Testament sounds like something that could only come from a Protestant or Jewish person.

The Orthodox link I provided gives passages in the New Testament, in the Gospels even, quoting the Old Testament texts the Jews and later Martin Luther stripped out of the Bible. The Jewish authorities did not exclude these books from the Old Testament until after the death and resurrection of Jesus. Might be why some of them followed Sabbatai Zevi as the Messiah in what was it, the 1800s? Until he went to Turkey and under the threat of Islamic archers was given two options, (1) convert to Islam and be spared the flight of their arrows, or (2) survive their arrows and thy and the whole of Islamic Turkey will bow down to him as the Messiah. He choose option 1 and converted to Islam.

He was no small figure and probably had far more followers of religious Jews than Jesus did.

Anyways, here is the traditional perception of Catholic Bishops and Orthodox Bishops around the world going back to the earliest days of the Church: Christians are the Israelite nation and all Jews who refused to accept Jesus are imposters to the claim and authority of that nation. And Christ is head of that Christian Church and has given his Apostles and their successor power to *bind* and *loose* on earth.

In other words the Jewish Messiah came. Those that follow him are successors to the ancient Jewish claim and all that refuse him are not.

Once the temple fell, once the priesthood of the Jews with sacrificial offerings disappeared, once Rabbinic Judaism emerged to replace it so ancient Judaism disappeared. The Priesthood of Christ with his Bishops presiding over an alter for the sacrificial offer is what remains of ancient Judaism. They are the cult of the Jewish Messiah who rose from the dead.






(Per my statement in green, on perception, above.)

Click to expand...

That has nothing to do with my background. Bind and loose in NT is just about the switching of earthly authority, such as from the Jews to Catholics or from Catholics to Protestants. It has nothing to do with who is more legitimate in canonize the OT. The Jews are legitimate because Israel as whole once upon a time was called to be God's witness. The bind and loose authentication belongs to the Jews during the whole process of OT witnessing and crafting. It's only at the point that the Jews rejected Christ that Christ has to switch the authentication from the Jews to the Apostles for the witnessing and crafting of the NT Bible.

Bind and loose is the term the high priests used in declaring the law of God. The verse in NT shows the significance of an authority switch, that is, from the Jews to the apostles. It by no means says that the OT canonization of the Jews became invalid. Similarly when the authority was switched from Catholics to Protestants, it by no means says that the OT canon done by the Jews or the NT canon done by the Catholics became invalid. Those process were still considered done legitimately.

Hawkins said:

That has nothing to do with my background. Bind and loose in NT is just about the switching of earthly authority, such as from the Jews to Catholics or from Catholics to Protestants. It has nothing to do with who is more legitimate in canonize the OT. The Jews are legitimate because Israel as whole once upon a time was called to be God's witness. The bind and loose authentication belongs to the Jews during the whole process of OT witnessing and crafting. It's only at the point that the Jews rejected Christ that Christ has to switch the authentication from the Jews to the Apostles for the witnessing and crafting of the NT Bible.

Bind and loose is the term the high priests used in declaring the law of God. The verse in NT shows the significance of an authority switch, that is, from the Jews to the apostles. It by no means says that the OT canonization of the Jews became invalid. Similarly when the authority was switched from Catholics to Protestants, it by no means says that the OT canon done by the Jews or the NT canon done by the Catholics became invalid. Those process were still considered done legitimately.

Click to expand...

My another point is that, canonization is a very strict and serious process. It is canonized then kept by the current earthly authority to guard it from anything being added. This is however not the case of Septuagint. Septuagint is more like a free publish that anyone can produce. It's not guarded by the Jews nor by any authority, it's commonly used by the Hellenistic Jews though. The Jewish Canon on the other hand is strictly guarded by the Sanhedrin. Only those scribes designated by Sanhedrin can make a copy of the Scripture which can be regarded as legitimate. The same control is applied by today's Apostle Church, though there's no strict definition of who is one the Apostle Church. In effect, no one can add or subtract the Bible contents, because the Bible contents are strictly supervised.

I think the Torah was given at Mount Sinai. I think the Tanakh was codified and recapitulated by Ezra in the time of Nehemiah.

Hawkins said:

That has nothing to do with my background. Bind and loose in NT is just about the switching of earthly authority, such as from the Jews to Catholics or from Catholics to Protestants. It has nothing to do with who is more legitimate in canonize the OT. The Jews are legitimate because Israel as whole once upon a time was called to be God's witness. The bind and loose authentication belongs to the Jews during the whole process of OT witnessing and crafting. It's only at the point that the Jews rejected Christ that Christ has to switch the authentication from the Jews to the Apostles for the witnessing and crafting of the NT Bible.

Bind and loose is the term the high priests used in declaring the law of God. The verse in NT shows the significance of an authority switch, that is, from the Jews to the apostles. It by no means says that the OT canonization of the Jews became invalid. Similarly when the authority was switched from Catholics to Protestants, it by no means says that the OT canon done by the Jews or the NT canon done by the Catholics became invalid. Those process were still considered done legitimately.

Click to expand...

No authority was conferred upon Protestants as they lack Apostolic Succession. The authority to create the Christian Bible belonged to the Bishops of the Church. That includes the Old Testament which makes up part of the Bible. The opinions and decisions of Jews after Jesus died and was resurrected is null and void. That's why I go back to that image of the young land/old lady illusion. The Jews took the Greek written portions of the New Testament out after the Church was already formed with the Holy Spirit descended upon the Apostles with tongues of fire over their heads.

Okay Hawkins,

Here is an Orthodox Priest (though he was once an Evangelical Protestant Pastor) explaining the Priesthood (which derives from the Bishops, the Bishops are the teachers within the Church). Close to the end of the video he very briefly mentions the origins of the Bible and the Council that put the Bible together. What is important in what he says is almost what he doesn't say. Notice his strong emphasis on the Church and what the Church has taught, rather than what academic scholars or individual clergymen in the Catholic Church teach.

The Bible is part of the liturgy and since the liturgy is critical to Christianity we can trust the branch on the tree of the Church which has not altered its liturgical practices to face the people, place the tabernacle to the side, and put emphasis on choirs located where high alters used to be. The Church is not some individual Orthodox Priest that is a biblical scholar with a liberal view. The Church is the community, with all its prayers and liturgy, it's saints and martyrs, that extends back into antiquity.

I say this because it bears psychological (even emotional) impact on how one sees "a thing." The young lady/old lady illusion image I put up. And trust in the Church is predicated on faith too of course. Not that you can't apply your reasoning capabilities too.




(The Orthodox Priest is actually being interviewed by an American Evangelical Pastor.)