Expert: Brenda Martin - 4/12/2008

Question
QUESTION: How do you know what books belong in the scriptures if this knowledge is itself not in the scriptures?  If we do not KNOW for certain which books belong, then can we trust the scriptures?  Can we know what books belong?

ANSWER: Yes we can know which books belong--

Determining Canonicity.-- What are some of the divine indications that have determined the canonicity of the 66 books of the Bible? First of all, the documents must deal with Jehovah’s affairs in the earth, turning men to his worship and stimulating deep respect for his name and for his work and purposes in the earth.

They must give evidence of inspiration, that is, that they are products of holy spirit. (2 Pet. 1:21)

There must be no appeal to superstition or creature worship but, rather, an appeal to love and service of God.

There would have to be nothing in any of the individual writings that would conflict with the internal harmony of the whole, but, rather, each book must, by its unity with the others, support the one authorship, that of Jehovah God.

We would also expect the writings to give evidence of accuracy down to the smallest details.

In addition to these basic essentials, there are other specific indications of inspiration, and therefore of canonicity, according to the nature of each book’s contents.

Old Testament--

It should not be thought that acceptance of what constituted inspired Scripture had to wait till the completion of the Hebrew canon in the fifth century B.C.E. The writings of Moses under the direction of God’s spirit were from the very beginning accepted by the Israelites as inspired, of divine authorship. When completed, the Pentateuch constituted the canon up to that time. Further revelations concerning Jehovah’s purposes given to men under inspiration would need to follow logically and be in harmony with the fundamental principles concerning true worship that are set forth in the Pentateuch. We have seen this to be true when we considered the different Bible books, especially as these deal directly with that grand theme of the Bible, the sanctification of Jehovah’s name and the vindication of his sovereignty by means of the Kingdom under Christ, the Promised Seed.

Quotations by Jesus and the inspired writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures (NT) provide a direct way of establishing the canonicity of many of the books of the Hebrew Scriptures also.

This was the catalog, or canon, that was accepted as inspired Scripture by Christ Jesus and the early Christian congregation. It was only from these writings that the inspired writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures quoted, and by introducing such quotations with expressions like “as it is written,” they confirmed these as being the Word of God. (Rom. 15:9)

New Testement--

The Roman Catholic Church claims responsibility for the decision as to which books should be included in the Bible canon, and reference is made to the Council of Carthage (397 C.E.), where a catalog of books was formulated. The opposite is true, however, because the canon, including the list of books making up the Christian Greek Scriptures, was already settled by then, that is, not by the decree of any council, but by the direction of God’s holy spirit—the same spirit that inspired the writing of those books in the first place. The testimony of later noninspired catalogers is valuable only as an acknowledgment of the Bible canon, which God’s spirit had authorized.

there are many other evidences, this is just breifly.

all the best
Brenda



---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: Brenda,

Thank you very much for your answer.  I have a few questions still, if you do not mind.

First, why do you refer to "Jehovah God"?  I thought that Jehovah was a bad spelling of God's name?  Are you a Jehovah's Witness?

Also, you wrote "Quotations by Jesus and the inspired writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures (NT) provide a direct way of establishing the canonicity of many of the books of the Hebrew Scriptures also."  But I was told by another answerer here that those greek scriptures included books in the Old Testament that most protestant bibles do not have is this correct?  If so, which bible is right?

You said "The Roman Catholic Church claims responsibility for the decision as to which books should be included in the Bible canon, and reference is made to the Council of Carthage (397 C.E.), where a catalog of books was formulated. The opposite is true, however, because the canon, including the list of books making up the Christian Greek Scriptures, was already settled by then, that is, not by the decree of any council, but by the direction of God’s holy spirit"

The other answerer said tha tthe Catholics church made the canon.  You say otherwise.  Can you show me where this list was that you reference?

Thank you very mush!

Samir


ANSWER: HI there Samir, you asked--"WHY DO YOU REFER TO "JEHOVAH GOD"?  I THOUGHT THAT JEHOVAH WAS A BAD SPELLING OF GOD'S NAME?"

Some criticize the form “Jehovah” by which the New World Translation renders God’s name. In Hebrew manuscripts, the name appears just as four consonants, YHWH, and many insist that the proper pronunciation is “Yahweh,” not “Jehovah.” Hence, they feel that using “Jehovah” is a mistake.

But, in truth, scholars are by no means in agreement that the form “Yahweh” represents the original pronunciation. The fact is that while God preserved the spelling of his name “YHWH” over 6,000 times in the Bible, he did not preserve the pronunciation of it that Moses heard on Mount Sinai. (Exodus 20:2) Therefore, the pronunciation is not of the utmost importance at this time.

In Europe the form “Jehovah” has been widely recognized for centuries and is used in many Bibles, including Jewish translations. It appears countless times on buildings, on coins and other objects, and in printed works, as well as in many church hymns. So rather than trying to represent the original Hebrew pronunciation, the New World Translation in all its different languages uses the form of God’s name that is popularly accepted. This is exactly what other Bible versions do with all the other names in the Bible.

"ARE YOU A JEHOVAH'S WITNESS?"

Yes, but I used to be a Protestant & God’s name (Jehovah) was pointed out to me from my King James Version of the bible in (Psalms 83;18.)

"MOST PROTESTANT BIBLES DO NOT HAVE (added books), IS THIS CORRECT?"

Yes; These are the writings that the Catholic Church has included in certain Bibles, but that have been rejected by others because they do not bear evidence of having been inspired by God. At the Council of Carthage, in 397 C.E., it was proposed that seven of the Apocryphal books be added to the Hebrew Scriptures, along with additions to the canonical books of Esther and Daniel. However, it was not until as late as 1546, at the Council of Trent, that the Roman Catholic Church definitely confirmed the acceptance of these additions into its catalog of Bible books. These additions were Tobit, Judith, additions to Esther, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, three additions to Daniel, First Maccabees, and Second Maccabees.

The book of First Maccabees, while not in any way to be reckoned as an inspired book, contains information that is of historical interest. It gives an account of the struggle of the Jews for independence during the second century B.C.E. under the leadership of the priestly family of the Maccabees.

The rest of the Apocryphal books are full of myths and superstitions and abound with errors. They were never referred to or quoted by Jesus or the writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures.

"WHICH BIBLE IS RIGHT?"

Only the ones catalogued by God, not the ones added later in the 4th century by the Catholic Church—

Here is what a first century historian says—

“The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, of the first century C.E. refers to all the books that were recognized by the Hebrews as sacred. He wrote: “We do not possess myriads of inconsistent books, conflicting with each other. Our books, those which are justly accredited, are but two and twenty [the equivalent of our 39 today)

Internal evidence confirms the clear division that was made between the inspired Christian writings and works that were spurious or uninspired. The Apocryphal writings are much inferior and often fanciful and childish. They are frequently inaccurate.

“THE LIST OF BOOKS MAKING UP THE CHRISTIAN GREEK SCRIPTURES  WAS ALREADY SETTLED BY THEN” CAN YOU SHOW ME WHERE THIS LIST WAS THAT YOU REFERENCE?

Have you heard of the “Muratorian Fragment”, it is the oldest existing canon, or authoritative list of books, of the Christian Greek Scriptures?

It is dated to between 170 and 200 C.E. The text is not merely a list of the books of the Christian Greek Scriptures. It also comments on the books and their respective writers.

The Muratorian Fragment confirms that the books now found in the Christian Greek Scriptures were already considered canonical in the second century C.E.

Of course, the canonicity of the Bible books—that is, their right to be included in the divine library—does not depend on their being mentioned in a certain ancient list. What gives evidence that the Bible’s books are the product of holy spirit is their content. They all support the authorship of Jehovah God and are in complete harmony. The harmony and balance of the 66 canonical books of the Bible testify to their unity and completeness.

I am happy to answer any further questions you may have.

All the best
Brenda


---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: Brenda,

Thank you very much for your well thought ought answers!  The more we talk, the more questions I have (i'm discussing with you and another experts too)

"Yes; These are the writings that the Catholic Church has included in certain Bibles, but that have been rejected by others because they do not bear evidence of having been inspired by God. At the Council of Carthage, in 397 C.E., it was proposed that seven of the Apocryphal books be added to the Hebrew Scriptures, along with additions to the canonical books of Esther and Daniel. However, it was not until as late as 1546, at the Council of Trent, that the Roman Catholic Church definitely confirmed the acceptance of these additions into its catalog of Bible books. These additions were Tobit, Judith, additions to Esther, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, three additions to Daniel, First Maccabees, and Second Maccabees."

Another expert said that these books were listed since the council of Rome and all other councils up to Trent, and that trent only re-emphasized that they belonged.  He shared this link, and I'd enjoy your take on it:

http://www.catholic.com/library/Old_Testament_Canon.asp

"The rest of the Apocryphal books are full of myths and superstitions and abound with errors. They were never referred to or quoted by Jesus or the writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures."

I asked this, and he said that they do not abound in errors, but that sometimes they were not meant as to be taken as literal history.  Judith begins by calling Nebuchadnezzar as the king of Assyria, not Babylon, which does strike me as rediculous for a history; but another said that this would be like saying "Hitler, King of the Russians", in that it would signal the reader that "what follows may not be 100 persent literal histoyr.  What are your thoughts on this?

"Only the ones catalogued by God, not the ones added later in the 4th century by the Catholic Church"

I understand that ultimately it's up to God, but how did he communicate this to us - this was the bulk of my original question which I'm still not sure of.

"Here is what a first century historian says—

“The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, of the first century C.E. refers to all the books that were recognized by the Hebrews as sacred. He wrote: “We do not possess myriads of inconsistent books, conflicting with each other. Our books, those which are justly accredited, are but two and twenty [the equivalent of our 39 today)"

Two and Twenty = 22...is'nt that much less than either Christian Bible?

"Have you heard of the “Muratorian Fragment”, it is the oldest existing canon, or authoritative list of books, of the Christian Greek Scriptures?

It is dated to between 170 and 200 C.E. The text is not merely a list of the books of the Christian Greek Scriptures. It also comments on the books and their respective writers.

The Muratorian Fragment confirms that the books now found in the Christian Greek Scriptures were already considered canonical in the second century C.E."

I looked this us an wikipediea and was curious about something.  According to that source it says "But Hermas wrote The Shepherd very recently, in our times, in the city of Rome, while bishop Pius, his brother, was occupying the chair of the church of the city of Rome. And therefore it ought indeed to be read; but it cannot be read publicly to the people in church either among the Prophets, whose number is complete, or among the Apostles, for it is after their time."  Is this talking about popes?  It keeps talking about the "catholic church" and "bihops" and "rome"...is this written by the catholics?  

And why does this fragment shape our view of what books belong.

I suppose I'm still just asking the original question - how does God let us know what books do and do not belong in scripture?

Thank you very much for your time!

Answer
PART 1 of my answer

The site reads--“During the Reformation, primarily for doctrinal reasons, Protestants removed seven books from the Old Testament: 1 and 2 Maccabees, Sirach, Wisdom, Baruch, Tobit, and Judith, and parts of two others, Daniel and Esther. They did so even though these books had been regarded as canonical since the beginning of Church history.”

Here is the TRUE history of the Reformation—

“BRITAIN, U.S. Begin Printing Common Bible.” “400-Year Gap Bridged at Yale. Dean Weigle’s 40-Year Effort Gives 2 Faiths Common Bible.” “New Bible May End Controversy Among Faiths.” Such were some of the headings in the public press that greeted the publication of The Revised Standard Version Common Bible issued in Britain on January 21 and in the United States on April 2, 1973.

Its preface says that leading Protestant and Roman Catholic scholars collaborated in producing this Bible. Also, that it has been approved by leading prelates of American Protestantism, of the Church of England, of the Roman Catholic Church and of the Greek Orthodox Church. It is said to be** the first Bible since the Reformation that is acceptable to all branches of Christendom***.

How did this Common Bible come to be produced? It is based on the Revised Standard Version (RSV) first published in its complete form in 1952. The RSV was approved by and gained favor among Protestants far and wide but apparently no thought was given to its being used by Roman Catholics. It had many good points because of the progress made in Bible scholarship. However, it took a major backward step from its immediate predecessor, the American Standard Version (ASV), in that it eliminated the distinctive and unique name Jehovah, the name of God, which is found almost 7,000 times in the ASV.

Then in 1966, doubtless due to the great popularity of the RSV, Roman Catholic scholars prepared an edition of RSV suitable for Roman Catholics. It incorporated the distinctive features found in Roman Catholic Bibles. For example, in it the apocryphal books of the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Baruch, Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees and additions to the books of Esther and Daniel were distributed throughout the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament). None of these had appeared in either the ASV or the RSV.

Also; there is little information as to when and by whom the various books of the Apocrypha were written. What evidence there is points to the second and first centuries B.C. The Greek Septuagint Version was produced WITHOUT the Apocrypha, those writings being added to it later. They became part of the Catholic Bible because Jerome used the Septuagint as a basis for his Latin Vulgate translation.

The writings of the Apocrypha had been placed in the Septuagint wherever they seemed to fit best and there they remained until the time of the Reformation. Luther, due to the influence of able Bible scholar and radical reformer Karlstadt, gathered the Apocrypha in one place, between the Hebrew and Christian Greek Scriptures, and at the same time noted that these did not have the same weight of authority as did the rest of the Bible.

Note too that more than a century PREVIOUS to Luther & the reformation; the Bible lover Wycliffe left the Apocrypha entirely out of his translation.

Anyway sorry a bit long but suffice to say; look at the “The Greek Septuagint.” Written in (285-246 B.C.E.) none of these books are in it. This version is often quoted by writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures. Apocryphal writings were evidently inserted in the Greek Septuagint sometime after it was first completed.

---------

back soon
Brenda