All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for
teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in
righteousness, so that one who belongs to God may be competent,
equipped for every good work. (2 Tim. 3:16-17)
But I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the
authority of the Catholic Church already moved me. (St. Augustine)
Introduction
When Catholic Christians pick up a Bible to read
or study, they often do so with little consideration to the history
that was involved in bringing that Bible to their hands. We are
taught that the Bible is the Word of God in written form. We
may even consider the Bible as a single book. Actually the Bible
is a collection of many different books, with many different authors,
and is divided into two distinct groups: The Old Testament and
the New Testament. And composed in many different literary forms.
We may not even realize that not all Bibles are the
same. If someone was to compare two bibles, lets say, a Protestant
and a Catholic Bible. One difference that would be apparent to
them by looking at the Table of Contents is that the Catholic
Bible has seven more books than the Protestant Bible in the Old
Testament. Why is there a difference? In this study we will
explore the history that was involved in bringing the Bible to
us modern Christians.
Historical development of the Biblical Canon - OT
The Bible as we know it today, that is containing
both the Old and New Testaments, didn't exist during the lifetime
of Jesus and His apostles. The Bible at that time consisted of
the Old Testament books only. These books include: the first
five books of the Bible, the Pentateuch, also known as the Law
of Moses, as well as the books of the Prophets, the Historical
writings, the Wisdom literature, and the Psalms. These writings
were originally written in Hebrew by their authors. At the time
of Jesus, the Hebrew Canon of scriptures wasn't fixed, meaning
that there wasn't a consensus amongst the religious leaders on
exactly which books were considered scripture.
After the Babylonian invasion of Israel and the deportation
of Jewish people from their homeland, many Israelites settled
in places far away from their homeland. One such group of settled
in Egypt, specifically in Alexandria in Northern Egypt. After
many years away from their homeland, and being influenced by Greek
speaking peoples who also lived in Alexandria, many of these Jews
were unable to speak, read, or write in Hebrew. These Jews, called
Hellenistic, were Greek speaking only. They remained very devout
to their Jewish religious heritage however, and had a need for
the scriptures written in the Greek language. Around 250 BC,
a group a Jewish scholars set out to translate the Hebrew scriptures
into Greek. Legend states that seventy translators were commissioned
for this task, hence this Greek version of the Hebrew scriptures
later became known as the Septuagint (Latin for "seventy").
The original version of the Septuagint probably consisted of
only the Pentateuch, since that part of the scriptures was necessary
for worship. Later the rest of the Hebrew scriptures were added
to this Greek version. This version was originally used in Alexandria
Egypt, but in time it was used by Hellenistic Jews all around
the Middle East, wherever Greek was the common language of the
Jewish community. Eventually the Greek version became common
in Israel as well, as can be evidenced by fragments of the Septuagint
found in the Qumran caves (Dead sea scrolls.)
After destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, in
70 AD, a Jewish Rabbinical school in a town on the Mediterranean
coastline named Jamnia attempted to determine the fixed list of
books that they would consider the Hebrew scriptures. In order
to accomplish this task they set out some criteria that would
assist them in forming a consensus. These were:
1. The books had to conform to the Pentateuch (the first 5 books).
2. The books had to be written in Hebrew.
3. The books had to be written in Palestine.
4. The books had to be written before 400 BC.
Using this criteria, they came to form what we call
today, the Hebrew or Palestinian canon of scriptures. By using
this criteria, some of the books that were previously contained
in the Septuagint were dropped from the Hebrew Scriptures since
they were either not written in Hebrew or were written later than
400 BC These books were Baruch, Sirach, Wisdom, 1& 2 Maccabees,
Tobit, Judith, and parts of the books of Esther and Daniel.
The early Christians were not bound by the teaching
of the Jews in Jamnia however, and by the time that the Jamnia
list had been made, the Christians had on the most part already
accepted the Septuagint as their version of choice. This is especially
true among the Gentile Christians who weren't conversant in Hebrew
and spoke Greek.. In fact the majority of the complete transcripts
of the Septuagint that have survived to this day are Christian
translations. And the Septuagint version contained the books
that the Jews in Jamnia had rejected. One note that needs to
be mentioned. Not all of the early Christian Fathers agreed with
the Septuagint Old Testament canon of books. Some of them who
lived in areas close to Israel were influenced by the Jamnia list
and accepted only the scriptures that the Jews in Jamnia had agreed
upon, although they sometimes omitted one or two of the books
accepted in Jamnia in their own lists. Basically it is safe to
say that at this point there wasn't a clear consensus amongst
all of the Christian Fathers on the exact Canon of the Old Testament.
Historical development of the Biblical Canon - NT
After Christ's ascension into Heaven, the Apostles
were given the gift of the Holy Spirit as Jesus had promised them.
They formed a small tight knit group, the Church, that was growing
with new converts to the Gospel that they preached. Originally
the first converts to Christianity were completely dependent on
the oral teachings of the Apostles (the Kerygma) to understand
the teachings of Jesus. As they began to grow throughout the
region, and to the very "ends of the earth", persecution
of the Church became more intense. Realizing that oral traditions
of Christ and His Apostles were a requirement to the faith of
the Christian community, the Apostles and later some of their
assistants began to put these oral traditions down in written
form. These writings, known as "memoirs" by the early
church, later became known as the Gospels by the succeeding generations
of Christians. There were also other writings of the Apostles
that were written to specific communities of Christians that were
also circulating amongst churches that were highly regarded and
were read at Church, these were known as the epistles or letters.
As the age of the Apostles began to wane, their successors,
the Bishops, who held the authority given to them by the Apostles
through the imposition of hands, began to encounter teachings
that were contrary to the Gospel message in which they were entrusted.
They began to refute these errors of teaching, called heresies,
by using the Apostolic writings as proof to the correct or "orthodox"
teaching that they had received. These writings began to be collected
and read by all of the Churches as evidence of their own orthodoxy
and to refute any heretical teachings in their proximity. With
time these writing became to be seen by the early Church to be
on the same level as the Old Testament scriptures, as inspired
scripture. A consensus began to develop around the Christian
world about which of these writings were accepted by most churches
as genuine. While others, those that were produced at later times
were rejected.
Canonicity
The word Canon comes from the Greek word Kanon.
This simply means a measuring stick or rod. The early church
began to use this word in the context of the holy books that truly
exemplified the rule of faith that they had received from
the Apostles. The reason for this, as mentioned above, was because
of false teachings that had begun to find their grounds within
the early Church. These heresies and the Heretical teachers that
were behind them, began to compose their own writings that contained
the error that they espoused. To further complicate the issue
for the early Church was that these writings were often named
after an Apostle, thereby attempting to attribute that Apostle's
own authority to the writing. A couple of examples of Gnostic
heretical writings are the Gospel of Thomas and The Acts of Peter
and the Twelve Apostles.
Another heresy that became a problem for the early
Church was the Marcionite heresy. The Marcionites, named after
their leader Marcion, attempted to remove anything that was associated
the Jewish people out of their heretical form of Christianity.
They radically changed their Canon of scripture by completely
rejecting all of the Old Testament writings. The New Testament
didn't fare much better, they rejected all of the Gospels except
the Gospel of St. Luke and accepted only ten of the epistles of
St. Paul.
Faced with these problems by the heretics. The early
church fathers began to compose lists of sacred books that they
considered canon. For the Old Testament scriptures these lists
tend to follow two lines of Tradition. One tradition held by
Justin Martyr and most western Christians was to use the Septuagint
listing of books as the Old Testament canon. They followed an
ancient tradition that the Septuagint was the only reliable version
of the Old Testament for Christians since they feared that the
Jews had tampered with the Hebrew version in order to disprove
the Christian claims that the Old Testament prophesies testify
to Jesus Christ as the Messiah. Another Tradition, held mostly
by some of the Eastern church fathers, held to the list promulgated
by the Rabbinical teachers at Jamnia. These Eastern fathers were
influenced by their proximity to the Jewish teachers. They held
that there were only 22 books in the Old Testament, that corresponded
to the Hebrew alphabet. One important note on this is they often
times grouped several books together as one when counting them.
For the New Testament books canonicty was based on: Apostolic
origin, orthodoxy of faith, and common use (ie liturgical, apologetic,
and didactic) by most of the Christian communities. Some New
Testament books were universally accepted such as the Gospels
and the Letters of St. Paul. Some were only accepted after some
discussion, such as the book of Hebrews, the second epistle of
Peter, and the book of Revelation. This was due to some doubts
that are related to some of the criteria listed above.
The Latin Vulgate
St. Jerome was considered the greatest Biblical scholar
of his day. Somewhere between 382-383 AD he began a new translation
of the Bible into Latin. This translation completed, in 405 AD,
was part of a request from St. Pope Damasus to make a new rendering
of the gospels into the vulgar (common) language of the people
of Rome and Italy. This work ultimately evolved into the whole
Bible. This was necessary since many Latin versions of the Bible
had in time been changed by their translators, thereby becoming
unreliable. With these many competing versions of the Latin Bible
in circulation, it became difficult to determine which one was
most faithful to the original texts.
St. Jerome had originally began this task of translating
the Old Testament into Latin from the available Old Latin version
and the Greek versions of the Septuagint. But he quickly realized
that these versions had also become unreliable. He decided that
he would start anew with the original Hebrew and Aramaic for the
Old Testament, and the Greek for the New Testament. This wasn't
without controversy however. St. Augustine sent him a letter
to ask him to stick with the Septuagint version for his Latin
translation of the Old Testament since this was the version that
the Eastern Church was using, and no small controversy occurred
when Jerome's version of the book of Jonah was read in North Africa
and it deviated in content from what the Christians were used
to hearing.
By the time that St. Jerome has begun his translation
of the Old Testament, he had moved from Rome to Bethlehem. In
order to translate his Old Testament into Latin from Hebrew, he
had to learn the original languages. He became the student of
some Hebrew Rabbis who weren't Christian. Under their influence
he began to regard some of the deuterocanonical books as non-canonical.
Nevertheless his Old Testament did include these books. His
version of the Latin Bible, the Vulgate, in time became the standard
and official version of the Bible for the Roman Catholic Church,
and is still to this day.
The Church Councils
At the beginning of the fourth century, many changes
for the Church began to happen. Specifically the legalization
of the Christian religion by the emperor Constantine. Also a
new heresy arose within the Church, Arianism, a heresy that denied
the deity of Jesus Christ. With this the era of the Church councils
arrived. Nicaea I was convened in 325 AD to condemn the Arian
heresy. Constantinople I was convened in 381 AD to better define
the person of the Holy Spirit. The Council of Rome
was convened in 382 AD to clarify some of the teachings
in the council of Constantinople. One of the decrees that came
out of the council of Rome was the Decree of St. Pope Damasus
that provided a list of the canonical scriptures. This is the
first list that is identical with the list as listed at the Council
of Trent and contained in the modern Catholic Bible. This list
contains the deuterocanonical books as part of the Old Testament,
in the Tradition of the Septuagint, that Catholics today accept
as canonical but the Protestants reject. Council of Hippo
(393): Local North African Church council in union with
and under the authority of the Bishop of Rome approved a list
of OT and NT canon (same as later approved by the Council of Trent).
Third Council of Carthage (397):
Local North African Church council in union with and under the
authority of the Bishop of Rome approved a list of OT and NT canon
(same as later approved by the Council of Trent). Sixth
Council of Carthage (419): Local North African Church
council in union with and under the authority of the Bishop of
Rome approved a list of OT and NT canon (same as later approved
by the Council of Trent). Council of Florence, an
ecumenical council (1441) Complete list of OT and NT canon
was drawn up; this list was later adopted by the Fathers of the
Council of Trent. Council of Trent, an ecumenical
council called to respond to the heresy of the Reformers (1545-1563)
The canon of OT and NT received final definitions: 45 books in
the OT; 27 in the NT; "Henceforth the books of the OT and
the NT, protocanonical and deuterocanonical alike, in their entirety
and with all their parts, comprise the canon and are held to be
of equal authority." The ancient Vulgate edition of the Bible
was called the authoritative edition of the Bible.
See appendix A for a more comprehensive list of
major events that led to the establishment of the Biblical Canon
that Catholics use today.
The Protestant Revolt
The Protestant revolt started with Martin Luther
on October 31,1517, when he nailed his 95 thesis on the door of
the Church in Whittenburg Germany. By 1522, Martin Luther had
translated the New Testament into German, and the Old Testament
in 1534. His version was not considered valid by the Catholic
Church however, since as part of Martin Luther's rejection of
the Catholic teaching on Purgatory he rejected the books of the
deuterocanonicals, especially the book of second Maccabees that
describes prayer for the dead. His reasoning for this is simple.
He based his revolt completely on the theory that the Bible alone
was sufficient for faith and morals and only it's authority is
to be regarded as the final authority. When confronted with the
evidence for the prayer for the dead in 2 Maccabees, he denied
it's canonicity. He later based this on St. Jerome's personal
(non authoritative and therefore non binding) opinion that these
books weren't canonical. Remember that St. Jerome was influenced
by the non-Christian Jews, that considered these books noncanonical.
Martin Luther therefore placed the deuterocanonical books in
an appendix at the end of the Old Testament in his translation
and labeled them as non-inspired and outside of the canon of scripture.
His New Testament didn't fare much better. He considered
the books of Hebrews, James, and Jude as being non-canonical,
as well as the Book of Revelation. He also placed these books
in an appendix at the end of his New Testament without page numbers.
He states his opinion about the book of Hebrews, "It need
not surprise one to find here bits of wood, hay, and straw."
About the book of James he labeled, "'an epistle of straw.
'I do not hold it to be his writing, and I cannot place it among
the capital books.'" He considered this so because of St.
James' teaching on faith and good works, which directly contradicted
his belief of Justification by "Faith Alone" or "Sola
Fide". And the book of Revelation he states, "I feel
an aversion to it, and to me this is a sufficient reason for rejecting
it . . ." Quotes taken from, The Facts About Luther, Cincinnati,
1916, pp. 202-204.
In making these statements and altering his translation
of the Bible, Martin Luther had rejected the Christian tradition
that had preceded him. In doing so he also makes himself the
final authority for canonicity of the Bible. Directly in contrast
to the ancient decrees of the true authorities, namely the Popes
(Damasus and Innocent I) and the ancient Church councils (Hippo
and Carthage) that had made their decisions under the guidance
of the Holy Spirit. In rejecting the Papacy and the Magesterium
of the Catholic Church, Martin Luther made himself his own Pope.
One last note on the Protestant Bible. Most of the
Bibles published after the Protestant revolt contained the "Apocrypha"
(as Protestants call the deuterocanonical books). It wasn't
until 1827 that the British Bible Society began printing and distributing
Bibles that did not contain the deuterocanonical books. Thereafter
most Protestant versions were printed without the "apocrypha".
There are however versions of the Revised Standard Version and
New Revised Standard Version, that contain the apocrypha/deuterocanonical
books and they are marketed as ecumenical versions. There are
also versions of the King James version "apocrypha"
that were published as a single volume. Aside from Martin Luther's
own prejudices against the deuterocanonical books, please read
some other Protestant myths and criticisms of the deuterocanonical
books and the Catholic answers from Envoy Magazine in Appendix
B of this essay.
The Council of Trent
The council of Trent, convened between (1545-1563),
was an integral part of the Catholic Counter Reformation. It
was convened to address many of the Protestant claims against
Catholicism. One of the articles of faith that was addressed
in response to Protestant dismantling of the Bible, was the reiteration
of the ancient canon of the Bible. After much review, the council
re-stated the Tradition of the early Church of the 4th and 5th
centuries. Namely it placed at the level of Dogma the Biblical
Canon of St. Pope Damasus I and the councils of Hippo and Carthage.
This was done in the view of the canonical traditions of the
Septuagint and the Latin Vulgate that were in existent for over
a millennia. Therefore the Catholic Church didn't add the deuterocanonical
books to the Bible at this Council. It definitively raised an
already existent Old Testament canon (Septuagint and Vulgate),
to the status of Dogma of faith. Meaning that it was now obligatory
for all of the faithful to adhere to the ancient canon of scripture.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states,
"It was by the apostolic Tradition that the
Church discerned which writings are to be included in the list
of sacred books. This complete list is called the canon of Scripture.
It includes 46 books for the Old Testament (45 if we count Jeremiah
and Lamentations as one) and 27 for the New." (CCC paragraph
120.)
It then goes on to list the books of the Old and
New Testaments as it was promulgated at the Council of Trent:
The Old Testament: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus,
Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1
and 2 Kings, 1 and 2 Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah, Tobit, Judith,
Esther, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes,
the Song of Songs, the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus),
Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Baruch, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea,
Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah,
Haggai, Zachariah, and Malachi.
The New Testament: the Gospels according
to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, the Acts of the Apostles,
the Letters of St. Paul to the Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians,
Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 and
2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, the Letters to the Hebrews, the Letters
of James, 1 and 2 Peter, 1, 2, and 3 John, and Jude, and Revelation
(the Apocalypse). (CCC paragraph 120)
See Myth 1 in Appendix B concerning Protestant claims
that the Catholic Church added the deuterocanonical or "apocrypha"
books at the Council of Trent.
Appendix A -
Reference: http://www.cbn.org/apology/catholic/ap031100.htm
Major Church Pronouncements on the Bible
Pentecost (30/33AD)
The beginning of the Church; the Church exists before a determination of a canon or a definitive list of books of what was later called the Bible. The NT was not even written yet. The Bible is the book of the Church, we are not a church of the Bible.
Melito, Bishop of Sardis (c. 170)
Produced the first known Christian attempt at an Old Testament canon. His list maintains the Septuagint order of books but contains only the Old Testament protocanonicals minus the Book of Esther.
Council of Laodicea (c. 360)
A local council of the church in union with Rome produced a list of books of the Bible similar to the Council of Trent's canon. This was one of the Church's earliest decisions on a canon.
Council of Rome (382)
Local church council under the authority of Pope Damasus, (366-384) gave a complete list of canonical books of the OT and NT which is identical with the list later approved by the Council of Trent.
Council of Hippo (393)
Local North African Church council in union with and under the authority of the Bishop of Rome approved a list of OT and NT canon (same as later approved by the Council of Trent)
Council of Carthage (397)
Local North African Church council in union with and under the authority of the Bishop of Rome approved a list of OT and NT canon (same as later approved by the Council of Trent)
Pope Innocent I, Bishop of Rome, 401-417 (405)
Responded to a request by Exuperius, Bishop of Toulouse, with a list of canonical books of Scripture; this list was the same as later approved by the Council of Trent.
Council of Carthage (419)
Local North African Church council in union with and under the authority of the Bishop of Rome approved a list of OT and NT canon (same as later approved by the Council of Trent)
Council of Florence, an ecumenical council (1441)
Complete list of OT and NT canon was drawn up; this list later adopted by the Fathers of the Council of Trent
Council of Trent, an ecumenical council called to respond to the heresy of the Reformers (1545-1563)
The canon of OT and NT received final definitions: 45 books in the OT; 27 in the NT; "Henceforth the books of the OT and the NT, protocanonical and deuterocanonical alike, in their entirety and with all their parts, comprise the canon and are held to be of equal authority." The ancient Vulgate edition of the Bible was called the authoritative edition of the Bible.
Vatican I Council (1869-1870)
Reaffirmed the decree of Trent. The Church holds the books of Holy Scripture as sacred and canonical, not because she subsequently approved them, nor because they contain revelation without error, but precisely because "having been written by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and, as such, they have been handed down to the Church itself."
Providentissimus Deus (1893), Pope Leo XIII, Bishop of Rome, 1878-1903
Inaugurated a new era in Roman Catholic biblical studies. Presented a plan for biblical study; Defined inspiration: "By supernatural power God so moved and impelled the human authors to write - he so assisted them in writing - that the things he ordered and those only they first rightly understood, then willed faithfully to write and finally expressed in apt words and with infallible truth."
Pascendi Dominica Gregis (1907), Pope Pius X, Bishop of Rome, 1903-1914
Refuted the errors of the Modernists; Scored erroneous teaching on the origin and nature of the Sacred Books, on inspiration; on the distinction between the purely human Christ of history and the divine Christ of faith; on the origin and growth of the Scriptures.
Spiritus Paraclitus (1920), Pope Benedict XV, Bishop of Rome, 1914-1922
Commends modern critical methods in biblical studies. All biblical interpretation rests upon the literal sense. Goal of biblical studies is to learn spiritual perfection, to arm oneself to defend the faith, to preach the word of God fruitfully.
Divino Afflante Spiritus (1943), Pope Pius XII, Bishop of Rome, 1939-1958
Permitted scholars to use original text of Scriptures. No claim was made that the Vulgate is always an accurate translation, but that it is free from any errors in faith or morals. The scholar must be principally concerned with the literal sense of the Scriptures; search out and expound the spiritual sense; avoid other figurative senses. Literary criticism should be employed. Stated that there are but few texts whose sense was determined by the authority of the Church (only seven biblical passages have been definitively interpreted in defending traditional doctrine and morals--Jn 3:5, Lk 22:19, 1 Cor 11:24, Jn 20:22, Jn 20:23, Rom 5:12, Ja 5: 14); this counteracts the frequent misunderstanding that Catholics have no
freedom interpreting the Scriptures.
Humani Generis (1950), Pope Pius XII, Bishop of Rome, 1939 - 1958
Instructs scholars on evolution, polygenism and OT historical narratives
Vatican II Council (1962-1965)
The decree, On Divine Revelation, declares that there is one source of Divine Revelation, Jesus Christ; that there are two modes of handing on revelation: Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition : "in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end," and "it is not from Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything that has been revealed." Concerning Inerrancy of Scripture: "The Books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching firmly, faithfully, and without error that truth which God wanted put into the sacred writings for the sake of our salvation. "Emphasized that "in order to see what God wanted to communicate in Scripture, we must investigate the intention of the
sacred author, and one way to do this is by paying
attention to the literary form employed by the sacred writer."
Appendix B -
Protestant criticisms and myths about the "Apocrypha.
-------------------------------------------------------
"5 Myths about 7 Books"
Here are the answers to five common arguments
Protestants give for rejecting the Deuterocanonical
books of the Old Testament
By Mark Shea
-------------------------------------------------------
People don't talk much about the deuterocanon these
days. The folks who do are mostly Christians, and they
usually fall into two general groupings: Catholics -
who usually don't know their Bibles very well and,
therefore, don't know much about the deuterocanonical
books, and Protestants - who may know their Bibles a
bit better, though their Bibles don't have the
deuterocanonical books in them anyway, so they don't
know anything about them either. With the stage thus
set for informed ecumenical dialogue, it's no wonder
most people think the deuterocanon is some sort of
particle weapon recently perfected by the
Pentagon.
The deuterocanon (ie. "second canon") is a set of
seven books - Sirach, Tobit, Wisdom, Judith, 1 and 2
Maccabees, and Baruch, as well as longer versions of
Daniel and Esther - that are found in the Old
Testament canon used by Catholics, but are not in the
Old Testament canon used by Protestants, who typically
refer to them by the mildly pejorative term
"apocrypha." This group of books is called
"deuterocanonical" not (as some imagine) because they
are a "second rate" or inferior canon, but because
their status as being part of the canon of Scripture
was settled later in time than certain books that
always and everywhere were regarded as Scripture, such
as Genesis, Isaiah, and Psalms.
Why are Protestant Bibles missing these books?
Protestants offer various explanations to explain why
they reject the deuterocanonical books as Scripture. I
call these explanations "myths" because they are
either incorrect or simply inadequate reasons for
rejecting these books of Scripture. Let's explore the
five most common of these myths and see how to respond
to them.
Myth 1
The deuterocanonical books are not found in the Hebrew
Bible. They were added by the Catholic Church at the
Council of Trent after Luther rejected
it.
The background to this theory goes like this: Jesus
and the Apostles, being Jews, used the same Bible Jews
use today. However, after they passed from the scene,
muddled hierarchs started adding books to the Bible
either out of ignorance or because such books helped
back up various wacky Catholic traditions that were
added to the gospel. In the 16th century, when the
Reformation came along, the first Protestants, finally
able to read their Bibles without ecclesial propaganda
from Rome, noticed that the Jewish and Catholic Old
Testaments differed, recognized this medieval addition
for what it was and scraped it off the Word of God
like so many barnacles off a diamond. Rome, ever
ornery, reacted by officially adding the
deuterocanonical books at the Council of Trent
(1545-1564) and started telling Catholics "they had
always been there."
This is a fine theory. The problem is that its basis
in history is gossamer thin. As we'll see in a moment,
accepting this myth leads to some remarkable dilemmas
a little further on.
The problems with this theory are first, it relies on
the incorrect notion that the modern Jewish Bible is
identical to the Bible used by Jesus and the Apostles.
This is false. In fact, the Old Testament was still
very much in flux in the time of Christ and there was
no fixed canon of Scripture in the apostolic period.
Some people will tell you that there must have been
since, they say, Jesus held people accountable to obey
the Scriptures. But this is also untrue. For in fact,
Jesus held people accountable to obey their conscience
and therefore, to obey Scripture insofar as they were
able to grasp what constituted "Scripture."
Consider the Sadducees. They only regarded the first
five books of the Old Testament as inspired and
canonical. The rest of the Old Testament was regarded
by them in much the same way the deuterocanon is
regarded by Protestant Christians today: nice, but not
the inspired Word of God. This was precisely why the
Sadducees argued with Jesus against the reality of the
resurrection in Matthew 22:23-33: they couldn't see it
in the five books of Moses and they did not regard the
later books of Scripture which spoke of it explicitly
(such as Isaiah and 2 Maccabees) to be inspired and
canonical. Does Jesus say to them "You do greatly err,
not knowing Isaiah and 2 Maccabees"? Does He bind them
to acknowledge these books as canonical? No. He
doesn't try to drag the Sadducees kicking and
screaming into an expanded Old Testament. He simply
holds the Sadducees accountable to take seriously the
portion of Scripture they do acknowledge: that is, He
argues for the resurrection based on the five books of
the Law. But of course, this doesn't mean Jesus
commits Himself to the Sadducees' whittled-down
canon.
When addressing the Pharisees, another Jewish faction
of the time, Jesus does the same thing. These Jews
seem to have held to a canon resembling the modern
Jewish canon, one far larger than that of the
Sadducees but not as large as other Jewish collections
of Scripture. That's why Christ and the Apostles
didn't hesitate to argue with them from the books they
acknowledged as Scripture. But as with the Sadducees,
this doesn't imply that Christ or the Apostles limited
the canon of Scripture only to what the Pharisees
acknowledged.
When the Lord and His Apostles addressed
Greek-speaking Diaspora Jews, they made use of an even
bigger collection of Scripture - the Septuagint, a
translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek -
which many Jews (the vast majority, in fact) regarded
as inspired Scripture. In fact, we find that the New
Testament is filled with references to the Septuagint
(and its particular translation of various Old
Testament passages) as Scripture. It's a strange irony
that one of the favorite passages used in
anti-Catholic polemics over the years is Mark 7:6-8.
In this passage Christ condemns "teaching as doctrines
human traditions." This verse has formed the basis for
countless complaints against the Catholic Church for
supposedly "adding" to Scripture man-made traditions,
such as the "merely human works" of the
deuterocanonical books. But few realize that in Mark
7:6-8 the Lord was quoting the version of Isaiah that
is found only in the Septuagint version of the Old
Testament.
But there's the rub: The Septuagint version of
Scripture, from which Christ quoted, includes the
Deuterocanonical books, books that were supposedly
"added" by Rome in the 16th century. And this is by no
means the only citation of the Septuagint in the New
Testament. In fact, fully two thirds of the Old
Testament passages that are quoted in the New
Testament are from the Septuagint. So why aren't the
deuterocanonical books in today's Jewish Bible,
anyway? Because the Jews who formulated the modern
Jewish canon were a) not interested in apostolic
teaching and, b) driven by a very different set of
concerns from those motivating the apostolic
community.
In fact, it wasn't until the very end of the apostolic
age that the Jews, seeking a new focal point for their
religious practice in the wake of the destruction of
the Temple, zeroed in with white hot intensity on
Scripture and fixed their canon at the rabbinical
gathering, known as the "Council of Javneh" (sometimes
called "Jamnia"), about A.D. 90. Prior to this point
in time there had never been any formal effort among
the Jews to "define the canon" of Scripture. In fact,
Scripture nowhere indicates that the Jews even had a
conscious idea that the canon should be closed at some
point.
The canon arrived at by the rabbis at Javneh was
essentially the mid-sized canon of the Palestinian
Pharisees, not the shorter one used by the Sadducees,
who had been practically annihilated during the Jewish
war with Rome. Nor was this new canon consistent with
the Greek Septuagint version, which the rabbis
regarded rather xenophobically as "too
Gentile-tainted." Remember, these Palestinian rabbis
were not in much of a mood for multiculturalism after
the catastrophe they had suffered at the hands of
Rome. Their people had been slaughtered by foreign
invaders, the Temple defiled and destroyed, and the
Jewish religion in Palestine was in shambles. So for
these rabbis, the Greek Septuagint went by the board
and the mid-sized Pharisaic canon was adopted.
Eventually this version was adopted by the vast
majority of Jews - though not all. Even today
Ethiopian Jews still use the Septuagint version, not
the shorter Palestinian canon settled upon by the
rabbis at Javneh. In other words, the Old Testament
canon recognized by Ethiopian Jews is identical to the
Catholic Old Testament, including the seven
deuterocanonical books (cf. Encyclopedia Judaica, vol.
6, p. 1147).
But remember that by the time the Jewish council of
Javneh rolled around, the Catholic Church had been in
existence and using the Septuagint Scriptures in its
teaching, preaching, and worship for nearly 60 years,
just as the Apostles themselves had done. So the
Church hardly felt the obligation to conform to the
wishes of the rabbis in excluding the deuterocanonical
books any more than they felt obliged to follow the
rabbis in rejecting the New Testament writings. The
fact is that after the birth of the Church on the day
of Pentecost, the rabbis no longer had authority from
God to settle such issues. That authority, including
the authority to define the canon of Scripture, had
been given to Christ's Church.
Thus, Church and synagogue went their separate ways,
not in the Middle Ages or the 16th century, but in the
1st century. The Septuagint, complete with the
deuterocanonical books, was first embraced, not by
the Council of Trent, but by Jesus of Nazareth and his
Apostles.
Myth 2
Christ and the Apostles frequently quoted Old
Testament Scripture as their authority, but they never
quoted from the deuterocanonical books, nor did they
even mention them. Clearly, if these books were part
of Scripture, the Lord would have cited
them.
This myth rests on two fallacies. The first is the
"Quotation Equals Canonicity" myth. It assumes that if
a book is quoted or alluded to by the Apostles or
Christ, it is ipso facto shown to be part of the Old
Testament. Conversely, if a given book is not quoted,
it must not be canonical.
This argument fails for two reasons. First, numerous
non-canonical books are quoted in the New Testament.
These include the Book of Enoch and the Assumption of
Moses (quoted by St. Jude), the Ascension of Isaiah
(alluded to in Hebrews 11:37), and the writings of the
pagan poets Epimenides, Aratus, and Menander (quoted
by St. Paul in Acts, 1 Corinthians, and Titus). If
quotation equals canonicity, then why aren't these
writings in the canon of the Old Testament?
Second, if quotation equals canonicity, then there are
numerous books of the protocanonical Old Testament
which would have to be excluded. This would include
the Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Obadiah,
Zephaniah, Judges, 1 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah,
Lamentations and Nahum. Not one of these Old Testament
books is ever quoted or alluded to by Christ or the
Apostles in the New Testament.
The other fallacy behind Myth #2 is that, far from
being ignored in the New Testament (like Ecclesiastes,
Esther, and 1 Chronicles) the deuterocanonical books
are indeed quoted and alluded to in the New Testament.
For instance, Wisdom 2:12-20, reads in part, "For if
the just one be the son of God, he will defend him and
deliver him from the hand of his foes. With revilement
and torture let us put him to the test that we may
have proof of his gentleness and try his patience. Let
us condemn him to a shameful death; for according to
his own words, God will take care of him."
This passage was clearly in the minds of the Synoptic
Gospel writers in their accounts of the Crucifixion:
"He saved others; he cannot save himself. So he is the
king of Israel! Let him come down from the cross now,
and we will believe in him. He trusted in God; let Him
deliver him now if he wants him. For he said, ÔI am
the Son of God'" (cf. Matthew 27:42-43).
Similarly, St. Paul alludes clearly to Wisdom chapters
12 and 13 in Romans 1:19-25. Hebrews 11:35 refers
unmistakably to 2 Maccabees 7. And more than once,
Christ Himself drew on the text of Sirach 27:6, which
reads: "The fruit of a tree shows the care it has had;
so too does a man's speech disclose the bent of his
mind." Notice too that the Lord and His Apostles
observed the Jewish feast of Hanukkah (cf. John
10:22-36). But the divine establishment of this key
feast day is recorded only in the deuterocanonical
books of 1 and 2 Maccabees. It is nowhere discussed in
any other book of the Old Testament. In light of this,
consider the importance of Christ's words on the
occasion of this feast: "Is it not written in your
Law, ÔI have said you are gods'? If he called them
Ôgods,' to whom the word of God came - and the
Scripture cannot be broken - what about the One Whom
the Father set apart as His very own and sent into the
world?" Jesus, standing near the Temple during the
feast of Hanukkah, speaks of His being "set apart,"
just as Judas Maccabeus "set apart" (ie. consecrated)
the Temple in 1 Maccabees 4:36-59 and 2 Maccabees
10:1-8. In other words, our Lord made a connection
that was unmistakable to His Jewish hearers by
treating the Feast of Hanukkah and the account of it
in the books of the Maccabees as an image or type of
His own consecration by the Father. That is, He treats
the Feast of Hanukkah from the so-called "apocryphal"
books of 1 and 2 Maccabees exactly as He treats
accounts of the manna (John 6:32-33; Exodus 16:4), the
Bronze Serpent (John 3:14; Numbers 21:4-9), and
Jacob's Ladder (John 1:51; Genesis 28:12) - as
inspired, prophetic, scriptural images of Himself. We
see this pattern throughout the New Testament. There
is no distinction made by Christ or the Apostles
between the deuterocanonical books and the rest of the
Old Testament.
Myth 3
The deuterocanonical books contain historical,
geographical, and moral errors, so they can't be
inspired Scripture.
This myth might be raised when it becomes clear that
the allegation that the deuterocanonical books were
"added" by the Catholic Church is fallacious. This
myth is built on another attempt to distinguish
between the deuterocanonical books and "true
Scripture." Let's examine it.
First, from a certain perspective, there are "errors"
in the deuterocanonical books. The book of Judith, for
example, gets several points of history and geography
wrong. Similarly Judith, that glorious daughter of
Israel, lies her head off (well, actually, it's wicked
King Holofernes' head that comes off). And the Angel
Raphael appears under a false name to Tobit. How can
Catholics explain that such "divinely inspired" books
would endorse lying and get their facts wrong? The
same way we deal with other incidents in Scripture
where similar incidents of lying or "errors"
happen.
Let's take the problem of alleged "factual errors"
first. The Church teaches that to have an authentic
understanding of Scripture we must have in mind what
the author was actually trying to assert, the way he
was trying to assert it, and what is incidental to
that assertion.
For example, when Jesus begins the parable of the
Prodigal Son saying, "There was once a man with two
sons," He is not shown to be a bad historian when it
is proven that the man with two sons He describes
didn't actually exist. So too, when the prophet Nathan
tells King David the story of the "rich man" who stole
a "poor man's" ewe lamb and slaughtered it, Nathan is
not a liar if he cannot produce the carcass or
identify the two men in his story. In strict fact,
there was no ewe lamb, no theft, and no rich and poor
men. These details were used in a metaphor to rebuke
King David for his adultery with Bathsheba. We know
what Nathan was trying to say and the way he was
trying to say it. Likewise, when the Gospels say the
women came to the tomb at sunrise, there is no
scientific error here. This is not the assertion of
the Ptolemiac theory that the sun revolves around the
earth. These and other examples which could be given
are not "errors" because they're not truth claims
about astronomy or historical events.
Similarly, both Judith and Tobit have a number of
historical and geographical errors, not because
they're presenting bad history and erroneous
geography, but because they're first-rate pious
stories that don't pretend to be remotely interested
with teaching history or geography, any more than the
Resurrection narratives in the Gospels are interested
in astronomy. Indeed, the author of Tobit goes out of
his way to make clear that his hero is fictional. He
makes Tobit the uncle of Ahiqar, a figure in ancient
Semitic folklore like "Jack the Giant Killer" or
"Aladdin." Just as one wouldn't wave a medieval
history textbook around and complain about a tale that
begins "once upon a time when King Arthur ruled the
land," so Catholics are not reading Tobit and Judith
to get a history lesson.
Very well then, but what of the moral and theological
"errors"? Judith lies. Raphael gives a false name. So
they do. In the case of Judith lying to King
Holofernes in order to save her people, we must recall
that she was acting in light of Jewish understanding
as it had developed until that time. This meant that
she saw her deception as acceptable, even laudable,
because she was eliminating a deadly foe of her
people. By deceiving Holofernes as to her intentions
and by asking the Lord to bless this tactic, she was
not doing something alien to Jewish Scripture or Old
Testament morality. Another biblical example of this
type of lying is when the Hebrew midwives lied to
Pharaoh about the birth of Moses. They lied and were
justified in lying because Pharaoh did not have a
right to the truth - if they told the truth, he would
have killed Moses. If the book of Judith is to be
excluded from the canon on this basis,
so must Exodus.
With respect to Raphael, it's much more dubious that
the author intended, or that his audience understood
him to mean, "Angels lie. So should you." On the
contrary, Tobit is a classic example of an
"entertaining angels unaware" story (cf. Heb. 13:2).
We know who Raphael is all along. When Tobit cried out
to God for help, God immediately answered him by
sending Raphael. But, as is often the case, God's
deliverance was not noticed at first. Raphael
introduced himself as "Azariah," which means "Yahweh
helps," and then rattles off a string of supposed
mutual relations, all with names meaning things like
"Yahweh is merciful," "Yahweh gives," and "Yahweh
hears." By this device, the author is saying (with a
nudge and a wink), "Psst, audience. Get it?" And we,
of course, do get it, particularly if we're reading
the story in the original Hebrew. Indeed, by using the
name "Yahweh helps," Raphael isn't so much "lying"
about his real name as he is revealing the deepest
truth about who God is and why God sent him to Tobit.
It's that truth and not any fluff about history or
geography or the fun using an alias that the author of
Tobit aims to tell.
Myth 4
The deuterocanonical books themselves deny that they
are inspired Scripture.
Correction: Two of the deuterocanonical books seem to
disclaim inspiration, and even that is a dicey
proposition. The two in question are Sirach and 2
Maccabees. Sirach opens with a brief preface by the
author's grandson saying, in part, that he is
translating grandpa's book, that he thinks the book
important and that, "You therefore are now invited to
read it in a spirit of attentive good will, with
indulgence for any apparent failure on our part,
despite earnest efforts, in the interpretation of
particular passages." Likewise, the editor of 2
Maccabees opens with comments about how tough it was
to compose the book and closes with a sort of shrug
saying, "I will bring my own story to an end here too.
If it is well written and to the point, that is what I
wanted; if it is poorly done and mediocre, that is the
best I could do."
That, and that alone, is the basis for the myth that
the deuterocanon (all seven books and not just these
two) "denies that it is inspired Scripture." Several
things can be said in response to this
argument.
First, is it reasonable to think that these typically
oriental expressions of humility really constitute
anything besides a sort of gesture of politeness and
the customary downplaying of one's own talents,
something common among ancient writers in Middle
Eastern cultures? No. For example, one may as well say
that St. Paul's declaration of himself as "one born
abnormally" or as being the "chief of sinners" (he
mentions this in the present, not past tense)
necessarily makes his writings worthless.
Second, speaking of St. Paul, we are confronted by
even stronger and explicit examples of disclaimers
regarding inspired status of his writings, yet no
Protestant would feel compelled to exclude these
Pauline writings from the New Testament canon.
Consider his statement in 1 Corinthians 1:16 that he
can't remember whom he baptized. Using the "It oughtta
sound more like the Holy Spirit talking" criterion of
biblical inspiration Protestants apply to the
deuterocanonical books, St. Paul would fail the test
here. Given this amazing criterion, are we to believe
the Holy Spirit "forgot" whom St. Paul baptized, or
did He inspire St. Paul to forget (1 Cor.
1:15)?
1 Corinthians 7:40 provides an ambiguous statement
that could, according to the principles of this myth,
be understood to mean that St. Paul wasn't sure that
his teaching was inspired or not. Elsewhere St. Paul
makes it clear that certain teachings he's passing
along are "not I, but the Lord" speaking (1 Cor.
7:10), whereas in other cases, "I, not the Lord" am
speaking (cf. 1 Cor. 7:12). This is a vastly more
direct "disclaimer of inspiration" than the oblique
deuterocanonical passages cited above, yet nobody
argues that St. Paul's writings should be excluded
from Scripture, as some say the whole of the
deuterocanon should be excluded from the Old
Testament, simply on the strength of these modest
passages from Sirach and 2 Maccabees.
Why not? Because in St. Paul's case people recognize
that a writer can be writing under inspiration even
when he doesn't realize it and doesn't claim it, and
that inspiration is not such a flat-footed affair as
"direct dictation" by the Holy Spirit to the author.
Indeed, we even recognize that the Spirit can inspire
the writers to make true statements about themselves,
such as when St. Paul tells the Corinthians he
couldn't remember whom he had baptized.
To tweak the old proverb, "What's sauce for the
apostolic goose is sauce for the deuterocanonical
gander." The writers of the deuterocanonical books can
tell the truth about themselves - that they think
writing is tough, translating is hard, and that they
are not sure they've done a terrific job - without
such admissions calling into question the inspired
status of what they wrote. This myth proves nothing
other than the Catholic doctrine that the books of
Sacred Scripture really were composed by human beings
who remained fully human and free, even as they wrote
under the direct inspiration of God.
Myth 5
The early Church Fathers, such as St. Athanasius and
St. Jerome (who translated the official Bible of the
Catholic Church), rejected the deuterocanonical books
as Scripture, and the Catholic Church added these
books to the canon at the Council of Trent.
First, no Church Father is infallible. That charism is
reserved uniquely to the pope, in an extraordinary
sense and, in an ordinary sense, corporately to all
the lawful bishops of the Catholic Church who are in
full communion with the pope and are teaching
definitively in an ecumenical council. Second, our
understanding of doctrine develops. This means that
doctrines which may not have been clearly defined
sometimes get defined. A classic example of this is
the doctrine of the Trinity, which wasn't defined
until A.D. 325 at the Council of Nicaea, nearly 300
years after Christ's earthly ministry. In the
intervening time, we can find a few Fathers writing
before Nicaea who, in good faith, expressed theories
about the nature of the Godhead that were rendered
inadequate after Nicaea's definition. This doesn't
make them heretics. It just means that Michael Jordan
misses layups once in awhile. Likewise, the canon of
Scripture, though it more or less assumed its present
shape - which included the deuterocanonical books - by
about A.D. 380, nonetheless wasn't dogmatically
defined by the Church for another thousand years. In
that thousand years, it was quite on the cards for
believers to have some flexibility in how they
regarded the canon. And this applies to the handful of
Church Fathers and theologians who expressed
reservations about the deuterocanon. Their private
opinions about the deuterocanon were just that:
private opinions.
And finally, this myth begins to disintegrate when you
point out that the overwhelming majority of Church
Fathers and other early Christian writers regarded the
deuterocanonical books as having exactly the same
inspired, scriptural status as the other Old Testament
books. Just a few examples of this acceptance can be
found in the Didache, The Epistle of Barnabas, the
Council of Rome, the Council of Hippo, the Third
Council of Carthage, the African Code, the Apostolic
Constitutions, and the writings of Pope St. Clement I
(Epistle to the Corinthians), St. Polycarp of Smyrna,
St. Irenaeus of Lyons, St. Hippolytus, St. Cyprian of
Carthage, , Pope St. Damasus I, the , St. Augustine,
and Pope St. Innocent I.
But last and most interesting of all in this stellar
lineup is a certain Father already mentioned: St.
Jerome. In his later years St. Jerome did indeed
accept the Deuter-canonical books of the Bible. In
fact, he wound up strenuously defending their status
as inspired Scripture, writing, "What sin have I
committed if I followed the judgment of the churches?
But he who brings charges against me for relating the
objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against
the story of Susanna, the Son of the Three Children,
and the story of Bel and the Dragon, which are not
found in the Hebrew volume (ie. canon), proves that he
is just a foolish sycophant. For I wasn't relating my
own personal views, but rather the remarks that they
[the Jews] are wont to make against us" (Against
Rufinus 11:33 [A.D. 402]). In earlier correspondence
with Pope Damasus, Jerome did not call the
deuterocanonical books unscriptural, he simply said
that Jews he knew did not regard them as canonical.
But for himself, he acknowledged the authority of the
Church in defining the canon. When Pope Damasus and
the Councils of Carthage and Hippo included the
deuterocanon in Scripture, that was good enough for
St. Jerome. He "followed the judgment of the
churches."
Martin Luther, however, did not. And this brings us to
the "remarkable dilemmas" I referred to at the start
of this article of trusting the Protestant Reformers'
private opinions about the deuterocanon. The fact is,
if we follow Luther in throwing out the
deuterocanonical books despite the overwhelming
evidence from history showing that we shouldn't (ie.
the unbroken tradition of the Church and the teachings
of councils and popes), we get much more than we
bargained for.
For Luther also threw out a goodly chunk of the New
Testament. Of James, for example, he said, "I do not
regard it as the writing of an Apostle," because he
believed it "is flatly against St. Paul and all the
rest of Scripture in ascribing justification to works"
(Preface to James' Epistle). Likewise, in other
writings he underscores this rejection of James from
the New Testament, calling it "an epistle full of
straw . . . for it has nothing of the nature of the
gospel about it" (Preface to the New
Testament).
But the Epistle of James wasn't the only casualty on
Luther's hit list. He also axed from the canon
Hebrews, Jude, and Revelation, consigning them to a
quasi-canonical status. It was only by an accident of
history that these books were not expelled by
Protestantism from the New Testament as Sirach, Tobit,
1 and 2 Maccabees and the rest were expelled from the
Old. In the same way, it is largely the ignorance of
this sad history that drives many to reject the
deuterocanonical books.
Unless, of course, we reject the myths and come to an
awareness of what the canon of Scripture, including
the deuterocanonical books, is really based on. The
only basis we have for determining the canon of the
Scripture is the authority of the Church Christ
established, through whom the Scriptures came. As St.
Jerome said, it is upon the basis of "the judgment of
the churches" and no other that the canon of Scripture
is known, since the Scriptures are simply the written
portion of the Church's apostolic tradition. And the
judgment of the churches is rendered throughout
history as it was rendered in Acts 15 by means of a
council of bishops in union with St. Peter. The books
we have in our Bibles were accepted according to
whether they did or did not measure up to standards
based entirely on Sacred Tradition and the divinely
delegated authority of the Body of Christ in council
and in union with Peter.
The fact of the matter is that neither the Council of
Trent nor the Council of Florence added a thing to the
Old Testament canon. Rather, they simply accepted and
formally ratified the ancient practice of the Apostles
and early Christians by dogmatically defining a
collection of Old Testament Scripture (including the
deuterocanon) that had been there since before the
time of Christ, used by our Lord and his apostles,
inherited and assumed by the Fathers, formulated and
reiterated by various councils and popes for centuries
and read in the liturgy and prayer for
1500 years.
When certain people decided to snip some of this canon
out in order to suit their theological opinions, the
Church moved to prevent it by defining (both at
Florence and Trent) that this very same canon was, in
fact, the canon of the Church's Old Testament and
always had been.
Far from adding the books to the authentic canon of
Scripture, the Catholic Church simply did its best to
keep people from subtracting books that belong there.
That's no myth. That's history.
Call 1-800-55-ENVOY today and subscribe at our
special introductory rate, order directly with our
online subscription form, or buy a copy of Envoy at
a location near you!
Bibliography
Internet resources:
http://www.fastlane.net/~sarogge/catholic/ADDBOOKS.html
http://net2.netacc.net/~mafg/bible01.htm
http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ115.HTM
http://members.xoom.com/catholicus/deuter.htm
http://members.xoom.com/catholicus/deuter.htm
http://www.gate.net/~catholic/deutero.htm
http://www.envoymagazine.com/envoy/samplearticles/marap/marapril_story2.html
http://users.sgi.net/~elcore/truth3.htm
Books:
The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, Prentice Hall Inc., 1990
The Formation of the Christian Biblical Canon, Lee
Martin McDonald, Abingdon Press, 1988