This is a fairly evenhanded review of it, though I would note today that many protestant denominations believe the Hebrew is what the apostles and Jesus themselves would have known better; Christians used the LXX for the most part in the early Church and the apostles later on no doubt used it if nothing else because it was more convenient for their evangelism efforts, but some denominations maintain Jesus and the apostles would have been more familiar with the Hebrew canon, as it would have been what was preached in the synagogues by more strictly Jewish rabbis in the areas around Jerusalem when all of the stuff in the 4 Gospels was going on.The Church choose to use the Greek (Septuagint) because this was the most popular version at the time of Christ and was most likely the same version which Christ and His disciples used. This is further substantiated by the fact that the majority of O.T. quotations found in the N.T. are from the Septuagint. To be precise, there were 340 places in the NT where quotes from the Septuagint are found as opposed to just 33 places where quotes from the Hebrew cannon are found. The Septuagint was completed between 250-125 BC where as the Hebrew canon wasn’t established until approximately 100 AD.
In 393 AD the Church officially decided which books to include in the canon of the Bible. This was done at the council of Hippo. Then in 397 AD at the council of Carthage, the Church again affirmed it’s decision.
Now, fast-forward to 1529 AD and we find Martin Luther proposing to re-invent the Bible using the Hebrew canon. Luther preferred the Hebrew canon because it contained 7 fewer books (Wisdom, Sirach, Judith, Baruch, Tobit, and 1 & 2 Maccabees were not in the Hebrew canon). These books were problematic for Luther on issues such as purgatory (especially 1 & 2 Maccabees). Luther attempted to also remove several other books of the Catholic Bible (James, Esther, and Revelation) but his supporters did not look favorably on these other books being removed so Luther relented.
For more info click here.
Hi James,This is a fairly evenhanded review of it, though I would note today that many protestant denominations believe the Hebrew is what the apostles and Jesus themselves would have known better; Christians used the LXX for the most part in the early Church and the apostles later on no doubt used it if nothing else because it was more convenient for their evangelism efforts, but some denominations maintain Jesus and the apostles would have been more familiar with the Hebrew canon, as it would have been what was preached in the synagogues by more strictly Jewish rabbis in the areas around Jerusalem when all of the stuff in the 4 Gospels was going on.
No argument from me here; actually, I should have included it in my response but was rushed. Thank you for bringing up Jamnia.Hi James,
The only problem with that is that the Hebrew Canon was established by Jewish rabbis at Jamnia in about 100 AD. Many believe that the Hebrew Canon was in reaction to the newly formed Christian movement’s use of the Alexandrian Canon (AKA - the Septuagint AKA - the LXX). This was, of course, AFTER the Assumption of Christ and after most of the Apostles (St. John may have still been living) were dead.
The first Protestants did NOT change the Bible or “get it wrong”. Luther translated Scripture into the native tongue of the people so that they could read Scripture for themselves finally. The books of the Bible were translated as accurately as possible from the original Hebrew language. Those books that many Protestants question (apocrypha) were and still are accepted by many Protestants but just not regarded in the same authority as the Scriptures. After all, these books were not contained in the Jewish canon nor do they claim divine authority.Seriously, I want to know. Since catholicism was around first, I can only assume the Catholic Bible was around long before KG or any other “Protestant” version. So what kind of content did they take out? And why? Any theology scholars???