The Old Testament Canon (An Eastern Orthodox perspective)

Who Decides? Unraveling the Mystery of the Old Testament Canon by Daniel Lieuwen

When the Church began, there were no New Testament books. Old Testament texts alone were used as Scripture. The Old Testament used in the early Church throughout the Roman world was not the Hebrew Old Testament, but a translation of the Old Testament into Greek called the Septuagint (LXX). The LXX was translated in Alexandria during the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus in the middle of the third century B.C., and was the standard Old Testament in the synagogues throughout the Hellenistic world (including Palestine) at the time of Christ.

In addition to the books included in a Protestant Old Testament, the LXX contained a number of other books now commonly referred to as Apocrypha or Deuterocanonical. Some of these books are Tobit, Judith, Maccabees, and a longer version of Daniel.

The LXX is based on a very different text of the Old Testament from the Masoretic text, on which modern English translations are based. For instance, in many places the wording is quite different, and the content of the books also differs—generally the LXX text is longer, but there are also interesting additions to the Masoretic text that are not found in the LXX. The text on which the LXX is based is as ancient as the Masoretic text, as testified by the Dead Sea scrolls and many other ancient witnesses.

Judaism was quite fluid at the time of Christ. There were seven distinct sects of the Jews in the early first century, according to Eusebius. The different sects accepted the authority of different collections of books (e.g., the Sadducees and Samaritans accepted only the five books of the Prophet Moses, the Torah), and there were often significant differences in the composition of the books they accepted in common. Sometimes the same sect might even make use of multiple text bases, or as scholars call them, text traditions. For example, the Dead Sea scrolls, containing the sacred texts of the Essene sect of Judaism, show evidence of the Masoretic, Samaritan, and LXX text bases.

However, with the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70, an intense standardization process began. Only the Pharisee and the Samaritan sects of Judaism survived this process. The collection of Old Testament books into what eventually became the Masoretic text was begun by the Pharisees at the Council of Jamnia, somewhere between AD 80 and 100, but was not completed until the sixth century. During this period, The Wisdom of Sirach, which was eventually excluded from the Masoretic text, was sometimes included in the Jewish canon, while Proverbs, Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, and Esther, all of which eventually found a place in that text, were sometimes excluded.

The Pharisees wanted a standardized Hebrew text of the Old Testament partly because of the large number of Christian Jews. The older LXX version of the Old Testament contained many messianic passages that the Christians could use to convince Jews that Jesus was the Messiah. In fact, the early Christians charged that the Pharisees had deliberately truncated the canon to avoid messianic prophecy pointing toward Jesus Christ (see Justin Martyr, Trypho 71–73).

For instance, Isaiah 7:14 in the LXX says, “A virgin shall conceive and bear a son”—this clearly refers to the Virgin Birth of the Messiah. On the other hand, the Pharisees’ version of Isaiah found in the Masoretic text only mentions a “young woman.” Moreover, many of the wisdom texts from the Deuterocanonical books, particularly Sirach, were commonly used by the Church as catechetical reading for converts. It is not surprising that the Pharisees would want to exclude these “Church texts” from their official Hebrew version of the Old Testament.

Since the Jews had never set an exact limit on the number of books in the Old Testament, it was not inconsistent with their own faith for the Pharisees to limit the books they wanted to include in their revised Hebrew canon. Like the early Church, the Jews of Christ’s time were not united around a particular set of texts (beyond the Torah, that is). They were organized around a liturgical life in the temple and synagogue. For this liturgical life, they came to use texts in the services. However, the liturgical life preceded the production of the texts and formed their context. Historically, as the Jewish faith developed in the synagogues and in temple worship during the postexilic period (the four to five hundred years preceding the coming of Messiah), texts came to be used in worship (e.g., the Psalms) and teaching. As mentioned above, the exact collection of texts varied depending on the sect.

However, with the loss of their center in Jerusalem and of unified temple worship (after AD 70), preserving the Jewish faith required greater standardization. The Jews could no longer afford divisions if they were to survive as a people. Thus, they needed a collection of unproblematic texts to use in their now dispersed population and synagogue-only worship. They needed to eliminate the use within their communities of texts useful to those whom they considered heretics (e.g., Christians, Gnostics, and Hellenizers). Particularly, they did not want to use in their services texts that the Christians could use to demonstrate that Jesus Christ is the Messiah promised by the Prophets of the Old Testament. The canon, or list of accepted texts, that the Jews produced as their standard is significantly shorter than the LXX and came to be known as the Masoretic text.

This distinction between the Jewish version of the Old Testament (Hebrew Masoretic text) and the Christian version of the Old Testament (Greek LXX) would not have been a serious concern for the Church if it hadn’t been for the growing separation of the Latin-speaking Church in the Western Roman Empire from the Greek-speaking Church in the East. In the fifth century, St. Jerome produced what became the standard Latin version of the Old Testament. However, instead of basing his translation on the LXX, St. Jerome moved to Jerusalem, lived with a Jewish family to learn Hebrew, and translated the Old Testament based on an early version of the Masoretic text.

Jerome’s translation, together with a translation of the New Testament into Latin, came to be called the Vulgate and included most of the Deuterocanonical, or Apocryphal, books of the Old Testament, but separated them from the rest. It also preserved many of the Christological prophecies which later versions of the Masoretic text omit. But because it was based on a text tradition different from that of the LXX, significant differences between the Vulgate Old Testament and the LXX are evident.

Throughout the Middle Ages, the Latin Vulgate was the standard translation of the Old Testament used in the West, while the LXX remained the standard in the East. While the New Testament of the earliest versions of the Vulgate is very similar to the Greek New Testament used by the Eastern Churches, the Old Testaments differed somewhat. But this did not present a significant problem for the Church at that time.

The Western Council of Hippo (393) was probably the first council to specify the limits of the New Testament canon, and it accepted the twenty-seven–book canon that we have today, allowing only these books to be read in church under the name of “canonical writings.” The discussion of the limits of the New Testament canon continued for centuries, but by the early sixth century, nearly all Christians recognized only the twenty-seven books in our current New Testament as canonical. (To this day, the Nestorians recognize a twenty-two–book subset and the Ethiopians a superset of the New Testament.)

The canon of the Old Testament books, on the other hand, has never been clearly decided or closed by the Church. It is clear from the quotations from the Old Testament by the New Testament writers and other very early Christian witnesses that the preferred and almost exclusive version of the Old Testament for the earliest Christians was the LXX. However, the books cited as Scripture vary widely even among the New Testament writers. For example, St. Jude, the stepbrother of the Lord, in his canonical New Testament letter cites the apocryphal Book of Enoch. Today, the only Christian group to include Enoch in the canon of the Old Testament is the Ethiopian Coptics. In fact, differences in Old Testament canons exist among most major Christian groups in spite of a common New Testament canon. Most Protestants reject the Deuterocanonical books completely. The Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox lists of accepted Deuterocanonical books differ (the Greek list is longer). There are even slight differences between the Russian Orthodox and Greek Orthodox versions of the Old Testament. However, these distinctions are irrelevant to most English-speaking Christians, because most Bibles published in English omit the Deutero-canonical books completely.

Most Bibles that are available in North America today are published by Protestants; consequently, the Old Testaments in these Bibles are translations based on the Jewish Masoretic text and omit the Deutero-canonical books. The historical reasons for this appear almost accidental, and most English-speaking Christians are unaware of them.

The Protestant Reformers’ emphasis on original languages (coming out of their Renaissance heritage) led most of the Reformers to insist on using the Old Testament canon available to them in Hebrew, which had become standard among the Jews (the Masoretic text). During the late Middle Ages, the Germans and Englishmen who began to translate the Bible into “the language of the people” were ignorant of the importance of the LXX (or in some cases even completely ignorant of its existence). They assumed that the Hebrew Masoretic text used by the European Jews of their day was more authentic than the Latin Vulgate, which in their mind was tainted by its association with the Latin Church based in Rome.

Although modern English translations of the Old Testament take into consideration the LXX and other text traditions, they have continued to rely principally on the Masoretic tradition. This has led to the sometimes embarrassing situation of an English Bible in which the New Testament quotations of the Old Testament are very different from the supposed “original” found in the Old Testament translation included in the same Bible.

For example, the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible has Paul quoting Isaiah as saying, “He who believes in him [Messiah] will not be put to shame” (Romans 9:33). The footnote in the New Oxford Annotated edition of the NRSV refers the reader to Isaiah 28:16, which reads only, “One who trusts will not panic.”

Just as the Protestant acceptance of the Masoretic text of the Old Testament had little to do with theology, the Protestant omission of the Deuterocanonical books from the Old Testament has very little to do with theology, although in the past hundred years or so it has taken on theological significance among many Protestant groups.

Until the mid-nineteenth century, most Protestants accepted the Deuterocanonical books as inspired in at least some limited sense. For example, the original version of the King James Bible, the most popular version of the Bible in English, included most of the Deuterocanonical books. And for many years in England, it was even illegal to publish a Bible without these books.

They continued to be included in almost all Protestant versions of the Bible until the missionary movement of the first part of the nineteenth century. In order to save on shipping costs, missionary Bible societies began publishing partial Bibles (New Testaments, Gospels, etc.). Converts and religious movements that were born out of this missionary movement came to believe that the thirty-nine books in the truncated, missionary-society–produced Old Testaments were the only “true” books of the Old Testament.

Most evangelical Protestants in America are heirs of this missionary movement. Consequently, many Americans who take the Bible seriously hold a grave misunderstanding about the Old Testament. They sincerely but mistakenly believe that the Deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament are not a part of the Christian Bible. They are ignorant of the fact that most of the Deuterocanonical books are quoted or alluded to as Scripture by the Apostles, the Church Fathers, and even Jesus Christ Himself.

Currently there is no translation of the LXX into modern English. Thank God that the St. Athanasius Academy has undertaken the Old Testament Orthodox Study Bible project in order to provide a good translation of the LXX into contemporary English. However, this project will not be completed for a few more years. In the meantime, an excellent translation of many of the Deuterocanonical books is available in most editions of the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible. However, for the thirty-nine books of the Protestant Old Testament, it is based primarily on the Masoretic text. Sir Lancelot Brendon’s The Septuagint with Apocrypha can be used to supplement the NRSV, although its language is somewhat archaic. Holy Transfiguration Monastery’s translation of the LXX Psalter (and Biblical Canticles) is also available and highly recommended.

Many prayers in the Church are based on prayers found in the Deuterocanonical books. The stories (or full stories) of many saints and angels celebrated in the liturgical calendar of the Orthodox Church are found in these books. The Wisdom of Solomon and the Book of Sirach, listed among the Deuterocanonical books, are storehouses of wisdom on a par with Proverbs. Edification and inspiration await those who take the time prayerfully to read these important books of the Church.

I am not attacking you. You claim that I, whom you do not know any better than I know you, have disobeyed God, forsaken the covenant He made with Abraham, and sinned against Mosaic law. That is not a personal attack in your mind, apparently. OK. I am merely pointing you to God’s own words - not mine - to see if you understand them, if you dispute their meaning in any way. And then I ask then you consider whether they apply to you.

I have chosen only words from the Old Testament, since you have called into question my understanding of the New Testament ... something which, again, in your mind is not a personal attack. OK.

But tell me this, in the verses I asked you to look at, translate, interpret, and then simply apply to yourself, so I can see how it is done properly, what is wrong in this? Is God’s word simply empty, theoretical doctrine that we can bandy about generically, but has no application to the individual? Or is it directed at every human heart? Is it not speaking truth to every heart and telling each who it is who speaks to us, and demands of each of us - as God did of Job - who do you think you are before Me?

Now, if you just want to argue and call all Christians unfaithful and apostate, it seems to me that you yourself can be examined in the light of God’s truth to see how faithful and worthy you are. The words I put to you are not mine, they are God’s. Tell me I am wrong.

The result of this exchange - and feel free to put me on the spot with the same questions I ask of you - will reveal not only doctrine, but the thoughts of our hearts.

I called into question the doctrine of Christendom that is not based on Scripture. Doctrine that is opposition to John 7 & 1 John 2 for starters.

So if all you want to do is continue down a personal path, then you may, but that is not and has never been the path I wish to take.

"The contention of the CC that Islam and Catholics serve the same god is abominable as well as the contention by both CC and LDS that men become gods."

Exactly which Jews are you referring to? There were at least five different Jewish Canons that I am aware of; The Sadducee, the Pharisee, the Essene, the Septuagint and the Babylonian, none of whom agreed. The Church accepts the Septuagint because partly because it was accepted by the largest number of first century Jews.

So, patlin, you have no answer to what YHWH says in Genesis 6:5 or Ezekiel 18:4.

“The the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” (Genesis 6:5)

“Behold, all souls are Mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is Mine; the soul who sins shall die.” (Ezekiel 18:4)

And one more:
“The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; who can know it? I, the LORD, search the heart, I test the mind, even to give every man according to his ways, according to the fruits of his doings.” (Jeremiah 17:9-10)

God is not one to trifle with. I take Him with utmost seriousness, especially when He shows me how far short of His glory I fall.

I don’t sense that you want to talk about this God. So be it.

Ex 12:49 “One law shall be for the native-born and for the stranger who dwells among you.”

1 John 2:4 Anyone who says, “I know him,” but isn't obeying his commands is a liar - the truth is not in him. 5 But if someone keeps doing what he says, then truly love for God has been brought to its goal in him. This is how we are sure that we are united with him. 6 A person who claims to be continuing in union with him ought to conduct his life the way he did. 7 Dear friends, I am not writing you a new command. On the contrary, it is an old command, which you have had from the beginning

Deut 4:40 “Therefore, you are to keep his laws and mitzvot which I am giving you today, so that it will go well with you and with your children after you, and so that you will prolong your days in the land ADONAI your God is giving you forever.”

They are not Moses laws, they are YHVH’s house rules for His children. One house, one set of rules for our protection & well being. It's just too bad religious doctrine of man thinks it knows better than YHVH.

1 Cor 1:22 "For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; 23 but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, 24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God"

Let me know when the Orthodox Church accepts the Pope as head of their Church. Just the simple fact that Catholics feel they trace their lintage from Peter makes one wonder who the leader is of the Orthodox?

There is much more. It is nice to say the Orthodox and Catholics get along so well. But someone’s doctrine must be wrong. And that presents a problem when one claims their doctrine is guided by the Holy Spirit and the Church cannot be in error.

Here is an informed Orthodox Christian discussion of the issue:

http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?6922-Jewish-claims-about-the-Septuagint-Pentateuch-only

The real problem is that there was not one “Judaism” before Jesus and at the time of His earthly ministry, but several streams of Judaism. The Septuagint (meaning the entire Greek Bible) was a Hellenistic Jewish book, not a Rabbinic Jewish book.

Rabbinic Judaism, as it emerged after 70 AD, refused to acknowledge the Septuagint because of Christian use of it as a book of prophecy. Hence the idea that the “real Septuagint” included only the Pentateuch.

However, to this day, we Orthodox Christians see even the Pentateuch, in its Septuagint version, as containing prophecies of Christ, and we use it that way in our liturgies.

The Orthodox don't deny that the Pope of Rome is the successor of St. Peter. They dispute Rome's interpretation. I've flirted with Eastern Orthodoxy over the years, but I haven't become Orthodox because the preponderance of the Church fathers upheld papal authority. BUT it wasn't the sort of monarchical authority that evolved in the West during the Middle Ages out of necessity. After the Roman Empire fell the papacy was the only significant institution to survive, so it unfortunately adopted secular as well as religious authority. From the Council of Florence: "We also define that the holy apostolic see and the Roman pontiff holds the primacy over the whole world and the Roman pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter prince of the apostles, and that he is the true vicar of Christ, the head of the whole church and the father and teacher of all Christians, and to him was committed in blessed Peter the full power of tending, ruling and governing the whole church, as is contained also in the acts of ecumenical councils and in the sacred canons. Also, renewing the order of the other patriarchs which has been handed down in the canons, the patriarch of Constantinople should be second after the most holy Roman pontiff, third should be the patriarch of Alexandria, fourth the patriarch of Antioch, and fifth the patriarch of Jerusalem, without prejudice to all their privileges and rights. The Melkite Church has been one of the most vocal opponents of papal absolutism for over 140 years. Papal primacy and authority yes. Papal monarchy no.

Rabbinic Judaism, as it emerged after 70 AD, refused to acknowledge the Septuagint because of Christian use of it as a book of prophecy

Most of what I know about prophecy I learned from Jewish Rabbinical teachings. I will never convert because they place the Talmud(oral law) above Torah(YHVH’s law), but to deny their historical accounts of prophecy is to deny the devout Jewish writers who wrote them. In fact, the parables Yah;shua the Messiah spoke came right out of Rabbinic parable teachings.

You may want to rethink what you said and then actually take a read of Rabbinic prophecy & parable teachings.

From your wiki source:

“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.”

Not a cheap shot, just the truth.

Prophecy speaking of the times we live in today that clearly calls out the heresy of what Christendom doctrine teaches as the new covenant

Isaiah 24:5 The land lies defiled under its inhabitants; because they have transgressed the teachings(Torah), changed the law(Torah) and broken the everlasting covenant. 6 Therefore a curse is devouring the land, and its inhabitants are punished for their guilt. It is why those living there waste away, and the people left are few.

Casting off the Torah instructions in leui of what I call greasy grace, just say you believe and you are saved, and then replacing HIS Holy appointed times with celebrations filled with meals of unclean food that come right out of pagan traditions, celebrations that are scheduled according to the pagan religious calendar does not bring honor to our Father or His name which is YHVH(Yahweh), not LORD or God. What Christendom doctrine has done is render His Word meaningless and without honor. It's all about restoring HIS honor, not ours. We are HIS servants, not HE ours.

Rabbinic Judaism shares much of the prophecy in the Bible with other offshoots of Israel.

However, the Septuagint contains other passages (and other translations of some passages that are translated differently in the Masoretic version) that have been used in the Church as prophecies of Christ.

The most cited example “the virgin will conceive” from Isaiah.

And there was no fully developed Rabbinic Judaism in Jesus’ day. That would come later, in the period after 70 AD, and included the production of the Talmud.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.