On Bibles and Manuscripts

A few days ago, I wrote a post on “How To Dispose of Old Bibles.” n that post I quoted the words of a Rabbi who wrote the following:

Old deteriorated Bibles still bear the word of God and the name of God in them. They are old and worn, but they are still vessels of the holy, and so they cannot be disposed of in the garbage with yesterday’s green bean casserole.

Because old Bibles “still bear the word of God and the name of God in them,” the Rabbi suggested that old Bibles should “be covered and buried respectfully though not necessarily in a cemetery. They should be covered and then buried. ‘Dust to dust’ refers to the disposal of all holy vessels.”

The act of giving a proper burial to sacred texts was an ancient practice of Judaism. Jewish synagogues had a store-room called “the genizah” where old and deteriorated sacred texts were kept for proper disposal. The role of the genizah in Judaism is explained in an article in the Wikipedia:

A genizah is the store-room or depository in a synagogue (or cemetery), usually specifically for worn-out Hebrew-language books and papers on religious topics that were stored there before they could receive a proper cemetery burial, it being forbidden to throw away writings containing the name of God (even personal letters and legal contracts could open with an invocation of God).

The writing of Sacred Scriptures in Judaism was done with much reverence and care. Manuscripts were written by scribes trained for this special ministry. One article describing the making of a scroll of the Torah says that scribes must use sheets of parchment that come from a kosher animal and must use quills for writing the manuscripts and the quills must come from a kosher bird. The writing of the manuscript begins after the scribe “visits the mikveh in preparation for such holy work, and prays that the holy work about to be undertaken will be imbued with the sanctity in the scribe’s heart.”

A scroll of the Torah “may contain no errors whatsoever. While some mistakes may be corrected by scraping off the ink of a letter made in error and rewriting it, if a mistake is made in writing any of the names of God, no correction may be made because God's name may not be erased. The entire sheet of parchment must be buried or placed in a genizah, and the scribe must begin that section of the Torah again.”

All this reverence and sacredness in Judaism for the written Word of God brings me back to my original question: how to dispose of old Bibles?

I have an old Bible that I have used for more than 25 years. It is my teaching Bible. The Bible has been rebound because its covers were falling apart. I have marked the Bible with red, blue, and black ink. I have underlined the text and written notes in the margins. This old Bible bears the word of God and carries the name of God in it. Is writing on and marking the Bible desecrating God’s Word? Is the printed Bible as sacred as the written manuscript? If old Bibles need to be disposed of, should these Bibles “be covered and buried respectfully”?

I have a copy of the Revised Standard Bible on cassettes. Is the Bible on cassettes still the Word of God? The magnetic tape in one of the cassettes is broken. Should I also bury the cassettes because they bear God’s Word?

The other day I bought a new Bible and inside the Bible there was a CD containing the Gospel of John. Since I did not want the CD, I threw the CD away in the trash can, not with “yesterday’s green bean casserole,” but in the garbage with other garbage. Is the Bible on CD still the Bible? Should I have buried the CD?

These questions are not meant to ridicule the Bible because I believe that the Bible is the Word of God. And I believe Christians should treat the Word of God with respect. However, when disposing of an old Bible, should I bury the book? Is the book holy because it is the Bible? Where should I bury old Bibles? In my backyard? Behind the church? In a cemetery?

This question became relevant a few days ago, when about 200 New Testaments were burned by some Jewish teenagers in Or-Yehuda, a city near Tel-Aviv. A news report circulated by CNN says that “News accounts in Israel have quoted Uzi Aharon, the deputy mayor of Or-Yehuda, as saying he organized students who burned several hundred copies of the New Testament.”

Burning New Testaments is not a demonstration of respect for books that bear the word of God. The Jewish Anti-Defamation League has issued a statement criticizing the burning of New Testaments. The statement reads: “We condemn this heinous act as a violation of the basic Jewish principles and values. It is essential that we respect the sacred texts of other faiths. The Jewish people can never forget the tragic burning of sacred Jewish volumes at many points in history.”

Aharon told CNN that he collected New Testaments in order to dispose of them. I wonder whether he was planning to give those New Testaments a decent and respectful burial.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Bible, Genizah, Manuscripts

How to Dispose of Old Bibles

How to dispose of old Bibles? Many Christians have old Bibles they no longer use. How to dispose of them? Here is a Rabbi’s view of old Bibles:

Old deteriorated Bibles still bear the word of God and the name of God in them. They are old and worn, but they are still vessels of the holy, and so they cannot be disposed of in the garbage with yesterday’s green bean casserole

Read what he recommends about disposing of old Bibles by clicking here.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary


Tag: Bible

God Saw Good

In a previous post, I criticized a new translation of the Bible, The Ancient Roots Translinear Bible (ARTB). My colleague Blake Water, commenting on what I wrote, called my attention to the first 11 verses of Genesis. To show how awful this translation is, I am quoting Genesis 1:1-11 from the The Ancient Roots Translinear Bible.

The title of this post is taken from Genesis 1:10:

Genesis 1:1-11 (The Ancient Roots Translinear Bible):

Gen 1:1 First, God created the heaven and the land.

Gen 1:2 The land was a chaotic abyss, with darkness over the face of the abyss. The Spirit-wind of God fluttered over the face of the waters.

Gen 1:3 God said, "Light, be!" And light was.

Gen 1:4 God saw the light was-good. God separated between the light and the darkness.

Gen 1:5 God called the light "Day", and he called the darkness "Night". Evening was and morning was; day one.

Gen 1:6 God said, "Expanse, be amidst the waters! Be the separation between the ||waters||!"

Gen 1:7 God made the expanse to separate between the waters with waters under the expanse and above the expanse. So it was.

Gen 1:8 God called the expanse 'Heaven'. Evening was and morning was the second day.

Gen 1:9 God said, "Waters under the heaven: Wait at one place, to see the dry-land!" So it was.

Gen 1:10 God called the dry-land "Land", and the pool of waters he called "Seas". God saw good.

Gen 1:11 God said, "Land, spring-up grass! Cereals, sow seed! Fruit trees, make the kinds of fruit with seed in it over the land!" So it was.

Maybe “God saw good” (v. 10) but I doubt he is very happy with this translation.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Bible, Strong’s Concordance, Translation

A New Translation of the Bible: The Ancient Roots Translinear Bible

As most biblical scholars and translators know, translating the Bible from Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek into English or any other language is not easy. How does a translator clearly communicate the meaning of Hebrew words to English speaking people? Because the task is difficult, the result is that today we have many different translations of the Bible.

Now the problem has been solved. Let us welcome a new translation of the Bible: the Ancient Roots Translinear Bible. The aim of the Ancient Roots Translinear Bible is to solve the problem that different translations of the Bible create for the average reader.

The following press release explains the aim of the Ancient Roots Translinear Bible:

The "Ancient Roots Translinear Bible (ARTB)" is a completely new concept designed and patented by a scientist and bible-lover who asked the basic question: Why do we have to interrupt our reading of the bible to look up the original meaning of the Hebrew text in a separate book or footnote? Why don't English bible translations match the ancient text?

Author and scientist A. Frances Werner has done her homework. She has documented exactly why you have required to have the extra (and sometimes expensive) tools such as concordances, bible dictionaries and cross-referenced study bibles to decipher most English bible translations. By counting up all the word variations in the Old Testament in over 20 bibles, Werner has demonstrated that translators have unnecessarily complicated matters by not keeping the English consistent with the original Hebrew.

A. Frances Werner designed the Ancient Roots Translinear Bible (ARTB) to be 100% consistent with the ancient texts to simplify bible study. "The word "translinear" has been created to let you know that it is completely consistent between Hebrew and English. Thus, every unique English word matches every unique Hebrew word. Even thought the concept seems incredibly obvious and simple, it hasn't been done in 1500 years of English bible translations. That's why the ARTB is patented. Now you can save some time and money. You don't need to stop and reach for expensive reference books to be assured you finding the accurate word of God."

How did this translator produce a Bible that solved the problems translators have struggled for centuries to solve? How was this done? It was easy! The translator, A. Frances Werner, used Strong’s Concordance to make sure that every Hebrew word was translated in the same way in English. Here is what she says about the Strong’s words number 120 [adam] and 376 [ish]:

What you see is that there are two very distinct words in Hebrew designated by two different Strong's numbers 120 and 376. The major versions primarily reuse the word man for both. The ARTB utilizes the word human for 120 and man for 376 because they are different words.

But the confusion goes deeper. If you look up Strong's number 376 for the NASB, you'll find that not only did the NASB utilize the word man in 66% of the cases, but also words like husband, one, persons, and each, to words like tiller, soldier, tradition, and father for the remaining 33% of the cases--close to 1500 references. This is typical of all modern bible translations.

The Ancient Roots Translinear Bible (ARTB) began as a project to see what the Old Testament really looked like with all the missing words restored. But as they were restored, they were always applied with the rule of 1:1 correspondence to the ancient word. So in ARTB, the word human is utilized 100% of the time for Strong's number 120 [adam] and no other Strong's number.

Any one who has translated from Hebrew to English will agree that the approach taken by Ancient Roots Translinear Bible is very simplistic. Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible was first published in 1890. Strong’s Concordance is an index of the Bible based on the translation of the King James Version. The index is designed to help students find a phrase or a word and compare how the same word was used in another section of the Bible.

The major weakness of the Ancient Roots Translinear Bible is its dependence on Strong’s Concordance:

Since Strong's Concordance identifies the original words in Hebrew and Greek, Strong's Numbers are sometimes misinterpreted by those without adequate training to change the Bible from its accurate meaning simply by taking the words out of cultural context. The use of Strong's numbers does not consider figures of speech, metaphors, idioms, common phrases, cultural references, references to historical events, or alternate meanings used by those of the time period to express their thoughts in their own language at the time. As such, professionals and amateurs alike must consult a number of contextual tools to reconstruct these cultural backgrounds.

It seems to me that this new Bible will be consistent in translating the same Hebrew words into English, but it will be a Bible which will fail to communicate the beauty of the biblical message and the intricacies of the Hebrew language to its readers.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Bible, Strong’s Concordance, Translation

Mario Liverani, the Bible, Jim West, and the Unicorn

My review of Mario Liverani’s book, Israel’s History and the History of Israel has been received in different ways by different people (see Jim's blog). It is possible that my post failed to communicate clearly my objections to Liverani’s book or else people misunderstand where I stand on the issue of history and the Bible.

Let me begin by saying that I am not a maximalist nor a minimalist; maybe I am a medialist, as Kevin has suggested. I am not a fundamentalist, I do not believe in inerrancy, and I am not a literalist. I believe that the Bible is sacred Scripture, that God has revealed himself in the history of Israel and in the life and ministry of Jesus Christ, and that the Bible is a record of that revelation.

I do not adopt a literal interpretation of every fact and statement in the Bible. In my study of the Bible I use historical criticism and a literary approach to the text. I believe that the biblical narratives are based on historical events but it does not mean that history has to become the arbiter of faith.

As a Christian, I believe that the ultimate source for knowing what God has done in history and in the person of Jesus Christ is the Bible, both the Old and New Testaments. Everything we know about God we find in the Bible. In fact, without the Bible, our knowledge of God and what he has done would be minuscule. It is because of the Bible that we know the mighty acts of God in the events associated with the Exodus from Egypt and how they became the central focus of much of the Old Testament in the same way that the death and resurrection of Christ became the central focus of the New Testament.

However, the radical criticism and modern skepticism of biblical scholars have removed any possibility of historicity behind these events. To many scholars, these stories are only narratives that are metaphorically true even though they are not literally or factually true.

Marcus Borg, in his book Reading the Bible Again for the First Time (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2001), pp. 15-18, said that modernity has influenced the way most people read the Bible today: they know something to be true only when there is valid verification. Thus, one consequence of modernity’s impact on reading the Bible is that modernity has made people skeptical about spiritual realities.

It is this skeptical spirit that has impacted the study of Israelite history. The skeptical understanding of reality has influenced the way the Bible is read and has made the understanding of God and his work in the world a problem that goes against the very core of orthodox Christianity.

According to Borg, the logical outcome of this modern worldview is the kind of skepticism that leads to the rejection of the supernatural and eventually creates what has been called “the death of God theology.”

To me, it seems that biblical scholarship today has rejected the supernatural and developed a non-biblical view of God because of its preoccupation with factuality, that is, that for something to be true or historical it must be scientifically and historically proven by reliable evidence. In criticizing this view, Borg said that “modern Western culture is the only culture in human history that has identified truth with factuality.” He said Christian liberals are “fact fundamentalists,” that is, if a statement cannot be proved scientifically or historically, then that statement is not true.

Many biblical scholars are influenced by a postmodernity understanding of the Bible. This view affirms that historical events are culturally conditioned and in general, are historical reconstructions of the past. This is the view espoused by Liverani when he writes that the early history of Israel is an “invented history,” a reconstruction of the past in order to meet the political and ideological needs of the post-exilic Judean community.

It is the same view that led Borg to say: “The way of seeing and reading the Bible that I describe in the rest of this book leads to a way of being Christian that has very little to do with believing” (p. 18). Borg sees the Bible as the human product of two communities: Israel and the church. What the Bible says is the words of those two communities, not the word of God. Thus, the Bible as a whole does not have divine origin. The Bible is not divine in some parts and in some part human; the Bible is all a human product.

If the biblical narratives are invented history, then the Bible is no better than the Baal stories. If the Bible is only a human product, a work without divine origin, then there is no difference between the God of the Bible and Baal or Marduk.

The matter has to do how we teach and preach the biblical narratives. Now, here is where I need Jim West’s help and this is a sincere request since Jim teaches seminary students (as I do) and he pastors a church where he preaches to his congregation (as I do).

Let us suppose that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, and David never existed, that they were part of this invented history created by a group of Zionists to justify their right to take the land from poor peasants who lived in Palestine in the sixth or fifth centuries BCE. My question is: how is the fact that these people did not exist, the fact that they are literary creation, the fruit of a fertile mind, how does this fact affect our understanding of the New Testament? Here are four examples:

1. In Exodus 3:6 God said: “I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob.” This statement was quoted by Jesus when speaking about the resurrection: “But about the resurrection of the dead-- have you not read what God said to you, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead but of the living” (Matthew 22:31-32).

If Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob never existed, how can this statement be true, even metaphorically true? Or does it matter?

2. During the transfiguration of Jesus, Matthew 17:2-3 says that Jesus was talking to Moses. I know that this is only a vision but one that even Peter saw. However, how could Jesus speak to Moses if Moses was just an invention of a creative writer?

3. In John 8:58 Jesus said: “‘I tell you the truth,’ Jesus answered, ‘before Abraham was born, I am!’” This verse says something special about Jesus and in the process says something important about Abraham.

4. In the genealogy of Jesus in Matthew 1:1, Jesus Christ is called the son of David, the son of Abraham. However, how can this be true if David and Abraham never existed?

How do minimalists explain and understand these statements of the New Testament if these people never existed? Do we take the approach used by the people at the Jesus Seminar? How do Christians proclaim the truth of the gospel when these statement are based on a fictive history that tells the actions of people who never existed? I hope Jim (or any biblioblogger) has a good answer for me.

It is easy to say that Jesus was just quoting from the “invented history.” It is also easy to say that Jesus was accommodating himself to the knowledge of the people of his day, or that in his humanity he did not know everything, or that this is just metaphorical language, or that this is just the way the early church believed these things to be.

If the Bible is just a human book, the product of ancient Israel and the early church, then these four statements are only what those human writers believed these things to be. So, nothing needs to be historical because human beings can invent a history to provide political and religious legitimation to an ideology or a community either in the sixth century (ancient Israel) or the first century (the early church).

However, if the Bible is a record of God’s revelation in the history of Israel, if the Bible is the Word of God transmitted through human agents, then a metaphorical truth will not be sufficient to explain the biblical narratives. Contrary to what Borg wrote, reading the Bible from a Christian perspective has a lot to do with believing.

Whether one believes the history of Israel is based on historical events or is an invented history depends on whether the Bible is only the words of human beings or whether it is the word of God. I know where I stand and I can do no other.

In the end, Mario Liverani, Jim West, and Claude Mariottini may not amount to much. Some of my paranoid readers believe that the Second Coming of Christ will be in 2012. If Jesus does not come in 2012, then in one or two generations Liverani, Jim, and I will be history (whether invented or real the Lemches of the future will decide), but the truth of the Bible will remain.

Until now I have talked about Liverani, the Bible, and Jim West. But, how about the unicorn? As for the unicorn, we all know they never existed (read Duane’s post).

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Abraham, Bible, Marcus Borg, Mario Liverani, Revelation

What Would Jesus Do? : Politics and the Bible

The Republican presidential debate on November 28, 2007 in St. Petersburg, Florida focused on the role of the Bible on the life of the candidates.

Two questions reflect the mood of the audience: “Is every word in the Bible true?” and “What would Jesus do?”

To the question, “What would Jesus do?”, Mike Huckabee said: “Jesus was too smart to ever run for public office.’’

Do the candidates believe that the Bible is true? Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee offer their views about the Bible here.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Bible, Politics

The Inadequacy of the ETS Doctrinal Statement

In response to Doug Chaplin’s question, “Is this to keep the Catholics out?”, my former student, Joe Matos, wrote a response to my post on the proposed revision of the ETS doctrinal statement. He mentioned that the proposed revision of the ETS doctrinal statement is intended to strengthen the doctrinal statement of the association. Joe wrote:

The proposed amendment may be aimed to limit membership, but I don't think it is in direct response to Beckwith.

Van Neste published an article in the Winter 2004 Southern Baptist Journal of Theology titled, "The Glaring Inadequacy of the ETS Doctrinal Statement."

It should be noted (in light of the comment about Beckwith above and in a previous comment) that Van Neste concludes that Catholics (and Orthodox for that matter) could conceivably sign the current ETS statement. His paper goes so far as to say the the current ETS statement is broad enough in nature to have included heretical groups (like the docetists, who denied the incarnation) because the ETS statement affirms the deity of Christ (as would docetists) but it does not address the Jesus' human nature, and Pelagius (who affirmed the Bible and the Trinity) because the ETS statement does not address the nature of the Atonement or Resurrection.

Joe also mentioned an article by Van Neste published in the Winter 2004 Southern Baptist Journal of Theology titled, "The Glaring Inadequacy of the ETS Doctrinal Statement."

In that article, Van Neste wrote about the Roman Catholics:

I began this project with the hunch that a conservative Catholic could sign this statement. Catholics are clearly Trinitarian so there is no problem with the second sentence of the ETS statement. It has been suggested to me that the statement on Scripture, however, would exclude Catholics, because the statement upholds Sola Scriptura. However, this is not entirely clear. The statement only says, `The Bible alone . is the Word of God written.' Catholics could easily consent to that. It does not say that the Bible is `the supreme authority in all matters of belief and behaviour' as the UCCF statement does. The UCCF language places Scripture above tradition, reason and the Magisterium, but it is not found in the ETS statement (nor does the statement define the Bible as excluding the apocrypha). Since there is no discussion of the gospel, the key sticking point with Roman Catholicism, I believed there was no compelling reason why a Roman Catholic could not sign the ETS statement.

Read Van Neste’s article in its entirety by clicking here.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Bible, ETS

The ETS and Its Doctrinal Statement

The Baptist Press is reporting that two Baptist college professors are spearheading an effort to amend the current doctrinal basis of the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS).

The current ETS doctrinal basis reads: “The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs. God is a Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each an uncreated person, one in essence, equal in power and glory.”

Ray Van Neste, Professor of Christian Studies at Union University in Jackson, Tennessee and Denny Burk, Professor of New Testament at Criswell College in Dallas are proposing that the Evangelical Theological Society adopt the doctrinal basis of the United Kingdom's Universities and Colleges Christian Fellowship (UCCF), with the current ETS basis added to it. According to Van Neste, the UCCF document is “a much more complete document” that addresses such theological concepts as the humanity of Christ, the virgin birth and Christ’s return.

To read the proposed amendments, visit www.amendets.com.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Bible, ETS

Singing the Praises of the NIV

In my last two posts, I have pointed out inconsistencies in the way the NIV translates some Hebrew words (check here and here). These inconsistencies are not helpful to pastors who preach and teach from the NIV. They are also not helpful to lay people who use only one version of the Bible and do not use other versions to compare translations of specific verses.

Today I want to sing the praises of the NIV. I do not do this very often because in many places, the translation of the NIV does not reflect the intent of the original writers of the biblical text. In previous posts, I have pointed out some of the problems I have with the NIV.

One place where I believe the NIV is superior to the NRSV, the RSV, and the ESV is in Isaiah 40:9. The verse in these three translations reads as follows:

Isaiah 40:9 (NRSV): “Get you up to a high mountain, O Zion, herald of good tidings; lift up your voice with strength, O Jerusalem, herald of good tidings, lift it up, do not fear; say to the cities of Judah, ‘Here is your God!’”

Isaiah 40:9 (RSV): “Get you up to a high mountain, O Zion, herald of good tidings; lift up your voice with strength, O Jerusalem, herald of good tidings, lift it up, fear not; say to the cities of Judah, ‘Behold your God!’”

Isaiah 40:9 (ESV): “Get you up to a high mountain, O Zion, herald of good news; lift up your voice with strength, O Jerusalem, herald of good news; lift it up, fear not; say to the cities of Judah, ‘Behold your God!’”

Isaiah 40:9 (NIV): “You who bring good tidings to Zion, go up on a high mountain. You who bring good tidings to Jerusalem, lift up your voice with a shout, lift it up, do not be afraid; say to the towns of Judah, ‘Here is your God!’”

In the NRSV, the RSV, and the ESV, it is Zion (Jerusalem) who is commanded to go to a high mountain, and it is Zion (Jerusalem), who, as the herald of good news, is commanded to proclaim to the cities of Judah the advent of YHWH.

These three translations differentiate between the messenger who proclaims good news on God’s behalf in verse 6 and Zion as the messenger who proclaims good news to the cities of Judah.

In Hebrew, the construct form of the verb is difficult to understand. It literally means: “Messenger of Zion.” The Greek Septuagint translates: “The one bringing good news to Zion.” The Latin Vulgate translates: “You who evangelizes Zion.”

The verb mebasseret is a participle feminine. In Hebrew, the participle feminine form of the verb is used to denote an office or an occupation such as sophereth, the office of the sopher or scribe (Ezra 2:55; Neh. 7:5). Thus, the mebasseret in Isaiah 40:9 is a title that should be applied to someone who was appointed to proclaim good news to Zion and not to Zion as the one appointed to proclaim good news to the cities of Judah.

Thus, I believe that the NIV translation, which regards Zion as the receiver, and not the proclaimer of the good news, is a better translation.

The text in Isaiah is not calling upon Jerusalem to make known the good news to the cities of Judah. Rather, the messenger of God is to proclaim the good news to Jerusalem; he is to announce to Jerusalem (and in a sense, to the people of Israel), that after many years of lying desolate and waste, that her time of servitude has come to an end and that the time of release would soon come to pass (Isaiah 40:2).

The translation found in the NRSV, the RSV, and the ESV is awkward, because it gives Jerusalem the duty to proclaim to the other cities of Judah that the exile was over for the nation. It is also awkward to believe that the city of Jerusalem was called to go up to a high mountain and proclaim to the other cities of Judah that the Lord was about to bring the people back to the land.

Thus, when it comes to Isaiah 40:9, I have to sing the praises of the NIV. And this commendation of the NIV has something important to say about Bible translations. Every translation of the Bible has its strengths and weaknesses. No translation of the Bible is perfect, not even the King James Version.

Serious students of the Bible must learn how to use more than one version of the Bible and compare translations to gain a better perspective of the intent of the original writer. When translations differ, and they will differ, Bible students must consult good exegetical commentaries to gain a better perspective of what the biblical writers were trying to communicate to their readers and to us.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Bible, Exegesis, Isaiah 40:9, NIV, Translations, Versions

Atheists and the Bible

In my interview with Jim West published in Biblioblog, I said a few words about atheists that caused Duane Smith’s heart “to skip a beat.”

In response to what I wrote, Duane wrote a post, “Who Can ‘Fully’ Interpret the Bible?” in which he takes issue with what I said about atheists and biblical interpretation. Read his post and learn the full scope of his argument.

Jim West comments on my statement and Duane’s response in a post titled “Duane Smith v. Claude Mariottini” and presents the dialogue as an adversarial argument between atheist Duane and Christian Claude. Jim concludes his post by saying that “in some respects Claude is right. In some respects Duane is right.”

I will begin this post by responding to some of Duane’s arguments. It is possible that I made a mistake by putting all atheists in one group. Duane classifies himself “as a secular student with an interest in the Hebrew Bible.” Thus, his position on the Bible makes him different from the strident atheist whose sole aim is to ridicule the Bible.

Duane is a secular person who believes “that the Bible has had a tremendous influence on Western civilization.” His view is completely different from Bertrand Russell who believed that every bit of human progress in law, morality, and science has been opposed because of the teaching of the Bible. In his lecture “Why I Am Not A Christian,” Russell wrote: “A good world needs knowledge, kindliness, and courage; it does not need a regretful hankering after the past or a fettering of the free intelligence by the words uttered long ago by ignorant men.”

Atheists like Bertrand Russell, Robert Ingersoll, Richard Dawkins, and Christopher Hitchens approach the Bible with such a negative view that for them, the Bible is a book of lies and contradictions and the work of a demon. Strident atheists share Voltaire’s view of the Bible. Voltaire defined the Bible as “what fools have written, what imbeciles command, what rogues teach.”

So, how can strident atheists interpret the Bible when they do not believe in God, deny the possibility of revelation, reject the concept of inspiration, do not believe in divine intervention, faith, prayer, the possibility of miracles, or the concept of divine justice?

I agree with Jim West when he said that atheists “can be extraordinarily good historians and philologians.” Atheists can relate some historical events of the Bible to Assyrian and Babylonian histories, but the Bible is more than just a book of history. It is a religious book written by people of faith who believed that God had entered human history.

Atheists can study the words of the Bible (either in Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek) and understand precisely what the words mean and what the words communicate. But the Bible is more than just letters: “the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life” (2 Corinthians 3:6).

Duane has two criticisms which he believes disprove my argument. First, he said that “in order to provide as full an interpretation of a text as possible, the interpreter must be part of that text’s living tradition.” By this he means that for a proper interpretation of the text the interpreter must be alive when the text was written.

But this argument is not true. Albert Einstein's theory of relativity is very complicated but scientists can understand the theory of relativity today even though many of them were not alive when Einstein developed it. In addition, the Bible is different. “The word of God is living and active” (Hebrews 4:12). Because the word of God is living, then the believer does not need to have been alive when the word was written because the word is alive today, at a time when the believer is alive. The word of God makes itself contemporary with the believer. Thus, the believer becomes part of the text’s living tradition.

Second, Duane said: “Claude would be justifiably upset if I claimed he couldn’t fully understand Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens because he isn’t an atheist.”

But the fact is that I can. The works of Dawkins and Hitchens are only words and anyone can read words and understand precisely what the words mean and what the words communicate. Notwithstanding all the enthusiasm and the bravado in Dawkins’ and Hitchens’ words, they are, after all, only words.

The Bible, on the other hand, is the living word of the living God. And, that word became human and lived here on earth among us (John 1:14). This truth is hard for atheists to accept.

It is God who teaches us to understand his word. This is the reason the Psalmist prayed: “Teach me” (Psalm 119:12). So, the proper understanding of the Bible requires divine instruction. But how can people call on him in whom they have not believed? And that is the dilemma atheists face.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Atheists, Bible, Interpretation

The Bible and Copyright

William Patry, a Senior Copyright Counsel for Google Inc. and the former copyright counsel to the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, has written a post, “The Bible and Copyright,” in which he addresses my post in which I wrote that violation of copyright laws is stealing. In his post, Patry also discusses rabbinical sources that address copyright issues.

His conclusion:

“The Tosefta (Baba Kamma 7:3), far from condemning use of other’s words without their permission as “theft” regards it as meritorious, so long as credit is given.”

Read Patry’s article by visiting the The Patry Copyright Blog

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Bible, Copyright

Athanasius and the Canon

Athanasius (293-373 A.D.) was the bishop of Alexandria who played an important role in the Council of Nicaea. Athanasius deals with the canon in his thirty-ninth Festal Letter written to the churches in Egyptian which were under his supervision. The letter was written in 367 A.D. The following is the text of Athanasius’ letter:

Of the particular books and their number, which are accepted by the Church. From the thirty-ninth Letter of Holy Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, on the Paschal festival; wherein he defines canonically what are the divine books which are accepted by the Church.

1. They have fabricated books which they call books of tables, in which they shew stars, to which they give the names of Saints. And therein of a truth they have inflicted on themselves a double reproach: those who have written such books, because they have perfected themselves in a lying and contemptible science; and as to the ignorant and simple, they have led them astray by evil thoughts concerning the right faith established in all truth and upright in the presence of God.

2. But since we have made mention of heretics as dead, but of ourselves as possessing the Divine Scriptures for salvation; and since I fear lest, as Paul wrote to the Corinthians, some few of the simple should be beguiled from their simplicity and purity, by the subtility of certain men, and should henceforth read other books — those called apocryphal — led astray by the similarity of their names with the true books; I beseech you to bear patiently, if I also write, by way of remembrance, of matters with which you are acquainted, influenced by the need and advantage of the Church.

3. In proceeding to make mention of these things, I shall adopt, to commend my undertaking, the pattern of Luke the Evangelist, saying on my own account: ‘Forasmuch as some have taken in hand,’ to reduce into order for themselves the books termed apocryphal, and to mix them up with the divinely inspired Scripture, concerning which we have been fully persuaded, as they who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word, delivered to the fathers; it seemed good to me also, having been urged thereto by true brethren, and having learned from the beginning, to set before you the books included in the Canon, and handed down, and accredited as Divine; to the end that any one who has fallen into error may condemn those who have led him astray; and that he who has continued steadfast in purity may again rejoice, having these things brought to his remembrance.

4. There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews; their respective order and names being as follows. The first is Genesis, then Exodus, next Leviticus, after that Numbers, and then Deuteronomy. Following these there is Joshua, the son of Nun, then Judges, then Ruth. And again, after these four books of Kings, the first and second being reckoned as one book, and so likewise the third and fourth as one book. And again, the first and second of the Chronicles are reckoned as one book. Again Ezra, the first and second are similarly one book. After these there is the book of Psalms, then the Proverbs, next Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. Job follows, then the Prophets, the twelve being reckoned as one book. Then Isaiah, one book, then Jeremiah with Baruch, Lamentations, and the epistle, one book; afterwards, Ezekiel and Daniel, each one book. Thus far constitutes the Old Testament.

5. Again it is not tedious to speak of the [books] of the New Testament. These are, the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Afterwards, the Acts of the Apostles and Epistles (called Catholic), seven, viz. of James, one; of Peter, two; of John, three; after these, one of Jude. In addition, there are fourteen Epistles of Paul, written in this order. The first, to the Romans; then two to the Corinthians; after these, to the Galatians; next, to the Ephesians; then to the Philippians; then to the Colossians; after these, two to the Thessalonians, and that to the Hebrews; and again, two to Timothy; one to Titus; and lastly, that to Philemon. And besides, the Revelation of John.

6. These are fountains of salvation, that they who thirst may be satisfied with the living words they contain. In these alone is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness. Let no man add to these, neither let him take ought from these. For concerning these the Lord put to shame the Sadducees, and said, ‘Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures.’ And He reproved the Jews, saying, ‘Search the Scriptures, for these are they that testify of Me.’

7. But for greater exactness I add this also, writing of necessity; that there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being [merely] read; nor is there in any place a mention of apocryphal writings. But they are an invention of heretics, who write them when they choose, bestowing upon them their approbation, and assigning to them a date, that so, using them as ancient writings, they may find occasion to lead astray the simple.

Notes on Athanasius’ Canon

1. Athanasius mentions “heretics" in his letter. The heresy he mentions was Arianism, the belief that Jesus was a creature created by God who was not equal with God.

2. Athanasius' Old Testament canon has twenty-two books:

a. The Pentateuch
Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.

b. The Historical Books
Joshua, Judges, Ruth Samuel (1 and 2 Samuel are one book), Kings (1 and 2 Kings are one book), Chronicles (1 and 2 Chronicles are one book), and Ezra (Ezra and Nehemiah are one book).

c. The Poetical Books
Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, and Job.

d. The Prophetical Books

(1) The Minor Prophets
The Twelve Minor prophets are one book.

(2) The Major Prophets
Isaiah, Jeremiah (including Baruch, Lamentations, and the Letter of Jeremiah as one book), Ezekiel, and Daniel.

3. Esther is not included in the list of canonical books.

4. Athanasius' New Testament canon has twenty-seven books.

a. The Gospel
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

b. The Acts of the Apostles

c. The Catholic Epistles (seven)
James, 1 and 2 Peter, 1, 2, and 3 John, and Jude.

d. The Pauline Epistles (14)
Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, Hebrews, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, and Philemon.

e. The Revelation of John.

5. Books appointed by the Fathers to be read for instruction
Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobit, the Teaching of the Apostles (Didache), and the Shepherd of Hermas.

6. Athanasius strongly emphasized the difference between the canonical books and the apocrypha.

7. As for the apocryphal books, Athanasius said that they “are an invention of heretics, who write them when they choose, bestowing upon them their approbation, and assigning to them a date, that so, using them as ancient writings, they may find occasion to lead astray the simple.”

In a future post I will deal with the implications of the development of the canon for the church.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Athanasius, Bible, Canon

Name Those Books

My post “Old Testament or Hebrew Bible?” has generated much discussion in the blogspehere. The following are some of the posts dealing with this question:

Claude Mariottini, "Old Testament or Tanakh: A Response to Chris Heard."

Christian Brady at Targuman, “Where you stand depends upon where you sit.”

Duane Smith at Abnormal Interests, "Those Mostly Hebrew Writings.”

Metacatholic, “Naming the books we have in common.”

Tyler Williams at Codex: Biblical Studies Blogspot, "Once Again… What’s in a Name?"

Airton José da Silva at Observatório Bíblico, "Old Testament/Tanakh/Jewish Scriptures?"

Chris Weimer at Thoughts on Antiquity, "What is the 'Old Testament'?"

Richie at An Ecclesiastical Mutt, "The Power of Words: Old Testament vs. Hebrew Bible vs. Tanahk"

Chris Heard at Higgaion, “Neither 'Old Testament' nor 'Hebrew Bible.'”

Patrick George McCullough in kata ta biblia “Old Testament/Hebrew Bible/Tanak/Jewish Scriptures/Etc.”

I was not planning to write again on this topic, but later last week I received a comment from a reader that deserves a detailed answer.

Iris, a Jewish reader from Germany, wrote:

As a Jew I am very active in interreligious dialogue activities in Germany. I know this discussion and that people want to express their respect by avoiding the term "Old Testament".

But my experience is also, that there are individuals who are very pc in using terms such as "Hebrew Bible", "First Testament" .. and who have in some respect an anti-Jewish attitude (e.g. in using stereotypes such as the Jewish g-d of revenge and the Christian g-d of love".

As our (Christian versus Jewish) approaches concerning these texts (tanakh / old testament) are very difficult it seems to me that it might be difficult to find one term which fits for us all.

In Christian-Jewish dialogue groups I use sometimes the term "old testament". This is when I want to emphasize the Christian view on these texts.

I don`t feel insulted by the term "old testament" as long as Christians behave respectfully.

Read Iris’ comments by clicking here.

I appreciate the discussion in the blogsphere. The discussion is healthy and promotes dialogue and understanding among those who are concerned about the Old Testament/Tanak/Hebrew Bible/First Testament/Jewish Scriptures/Older Testament.

Let me summarize my views and then point to an issue that has been forgotten in this discussion.

The Jewish Bible

The Jewish Bible is divided into three sections: Torah, Nevi’im and Kethuvim. Thus, the acronym “Tanakh” fits perfectly for the name of the Jewish Bible. This is the term used by most Jewish writers and many Christian writers.

“Hebrew Bible” is also a good term to describe the Jewish Bible, even though the term is not precise because there are Aramaic in several sections of the Hebrew Bible.

The term “Jewish Scriptures” is also a good term to use. Although there are a few other books that have religious authority over the Jewish community, it is doubtful that these books are considered Scriptures in the biblical sense.

Thus, the use of Tanakh or Hebrew Bible in a Jewish context or even in an academic context is very appropriate.

The Christian Bible

The Christian Bible is divided into two sections. The first section is almost equal to the Jewish Bible but the second section is unique to the Christian Bible.

It is not proper to call the first section of the Christian Bible, Tanakh. The Tanakh has 24 books while the first section of the Christian Bible has 39 books. In addition, the order of the books in the Tanakh is different from the order in the Christian Bible.

One could call it the Hebrew Bible but such a term is a misnomer because the Hebrew Bible contains several passages in Aramaic. In addition, the Hebrew Bible has more to do with the Bible of Judaism (or the Bible of academia) than the Bible of Christianity.

It is not proper to call the first section of the Christian Bible “Jewish Scriptures,” because these Scriptures are also Christian Scriptures.

Many people use the term “First Testament,” to indicate that there is more than one valid testament. However, it is doubtful that the Jewish community will accept the fact that there is a “Second Testament,” as valid as the first one.

Many people in academic circles refuse to use the term “Old Testament” because it may be offensive to some people and because the expression “Old Testament” may express something from the past that may not fit in the twenty-first century.

Here is the issue that has been left out in this dialogue:

If Christians cease calling the first section of the Christian Bible “Old Testament,” what then should we call the second section?

One alternative is “The Second Testament,” but this term carries as many negative implications as the term “Old Testament” does. In addition, Second Testament professors will spend a lot of time explaining what they teach.

Duane uses the term “Christian New Testament,” but the term is somewhat tautological for there is no Jewish New Testament, or Hindu New Testament. The term “New Testament” is used to describe that second section of the Christian Bible. Moreover, the term “New Testament” presupposes the existence of an “Old Testament.”

Most of the bloggers agree that context determines what we call the Jewish Scriptures and the first section of the Christian Bible. There is a place for Tanakh and Hebrew Bible and there is a place for Old Testament.

If Christian writers stop using the term “Old Testament,” then it becomes imperative that another name be found for the second section of the Christian Bible. I invite you to name those books in the second section of the Christian Bible. If the word “Old” is not good enough for the first section of the Christian Bible, then the word “New” is also not good enough for the second.

If we remove “old” from “Old Testament,” what should we call the books of the New Testament? Someone suggested “Jewish Covenant” and “Christian Covenant.” The word “Jewish Covenant” does not describe the whole content of the Tanakh nor the content of the second section of the Christian Bible.

The name we use for the first section of the Christian Bible will affect the way we call the second sections. It is for this reason I believe that in the life of the church, the names Old Testament and New Testament are here to stay.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of First Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

P. S. The title is not appealing. I have decided to keep my “old” tittle.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Bible, First Testament, Hebrew Bible, Old Testament, Tanakh

The Bible Comes to Disney World

The Murfreesboro Post of Tennessee is reporting that Bible Park USA will be built in Rutherford County’s Blackman community in Tennessee. This non-denominational park will display stories and events of the Bible and present a cultural history of Israel.

According to the promoters, Bible Park will depict well-known Bible stories with the quality of Disney World and the size of Dollywood. The park will have a section dedicated to Old Testament themes and a section with New Testament themes.

According to the article, these are some of the displays in Bible Park USA:

• An entry similar to the Gates of Jericho. Visitors will walk over a bridge and view the Dead Sea and the Sea of Galilee.

• An exhibit similar to an Imax presentation that simulates flying over the Judean desert, hovers over the Temple in Jerusalem before its destruction, and flies over hanging gardens of Babylon and the Great Pyramid and other attractions of ancient Egypt.

• A Tree of Life and a Tree of Knowledge will be included in a pastoral Garden of Eden. Adam and Eve will be depicted lying on the ground. Visitors may have their own interpretation of creation or evolution.

• The Exodus experience features waves of water that will provide a water screen to show the movie of “Exodus.” Moses will stand before the flames of the burning bush.

• Children will play through a depiction of Noah’s ark while actors dressed as animals will help recount that biblical story.

• In the New Testament area, the Bible will be inscribed on stone tablet walls much like the Vietnam Veteran’s Memorial in Washington, D.C. Visitors may use the walls to study the Bible.

• Tour guides will dress like the movie “Indiana Jones” character.

There is a rampant problem with biblical illiteracy in the USA. Bible Park USA will just compound the problem.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Bible, Biblical Illiteracy

Top Ten Old Testament Scholars

Charles Halton of awilum has developed a list of what he considers to be the “Top Ten Old Testament Scholars Since 1800.” It is a good list, but I disagree with his numbers 9 and 10.

At number 9 he lists John Van Seters and Thomas L. Thompson because of their contribution to the minimalist debate. At number 10 he lists William Dever because of his work as an archaeologist.

I believe that the work of Van Seters and Thompson has elicited much debate but the debate does not make them top Old Testament scholars. Dever is a good archaeologist but he cannot be considered a top Old Testament scholar either.

I agree with numbers 1-8 in Halton’s list. However, I would list Albrecht Alt at number 9 and S. R. Driver at number 10. Although Alt never published many books (most of his publications were articles), he has greatly influenced Old Testament studies with his seminal articles. Driver’s commentary on Deuteronomy and his An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament are great examples of works written by a top Old Testament scholar.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary


Tags: Bible, Old Testament, Scholars

Old Testament or Hebrew Bible?

Timothy J. McNulty, the public editor of the Chicago Tribune, wrote an article in which he discusses the issue of how to call the first section of the Bible. The following is an excerpt of his article:

The message was polite but firm: Please stop referring to the "Old Testament."

"Some, maybe many, Jews take offense at use of the term 'Old Testament,' " complained reader Dick Nugent. "We don't have a new testament, so our book is not an old testament."

The historical context is obvious, but the reader is correct, newspapers do not commonly take one religion's terminology to describe the works of another religion.

Better to say the "Hebrew Bible," Nugent suggested helpfully. To be even more specific, the newspaper could use the term "Tanak," an acronym for the five books of the Torah, the teaching of the prophets known as neviim, and the ketuvim, the other sacred writings.

Getting rid of the term Old Testament would stir some controversy and, more to the point, it may be confusing to many readers. The Tribune's stylebook, a guide for consistency and fairness, is silent on the term Hebrew Bible, but language is dynamic and change is a constant at newspapers. More on this later

Language maven William Safire tried to deal with the Old Testament issue several years ago and, after consulting with experts, he found those who suggested "First Testament" or "Early Scriptures" as alternatives. Some dismissed the term Hebrew Bible because originally part of it was in Aramaic; others thought it meant that the text could only be read in Hebrew. There was also a problem in that Judaism, Catholicism and Protestantism don't agree on which books are included, and in which order.

Safire ended up declaring himself a traditionalist and that his personal preference remained Old Testament.

In the conclusion of his article, McNulty declares his preference for Old Testament because of “its clarity.”

Personally, I prefer using Old Testament for theological reasons.

How do you feel about this issue? Let me know.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tag: Bible, Hebrew Bible, Old Testament, Tanak

Augustine and the Canon

Augustine (he is also called Augustin), the Bishop of Hippo (354-430 A.D.), in his treatise, On Christian Doctrine, Book 2, Chapter 8, deals with the study of Scripture and introduces the biblical canon as it existed in his day. This list which mentions all the books that should be considered part of the Christian canon was introduced in the fourth century during the Council of Hippo in 393 A.D. This list of canonical books was also affirmed by the Council of Carthage in 397 A.D.

In his book, Augustine wrote:

But let us now go back to consider the third step here mentioned, for it is about it that I have set myself to speak and reason as the Lord shall grant me wisdom. The most skillful interpreter of the sacred writings, then, will be he who in the first place has read them all and retained them in his knowledge, if not yet with full understanding, still with such knowledge as reading gives, — those of them, at least, that are called canonical.

For he will read the others with greater safety when built up in the belief of the truth, so that they will not take first possession of a weak mind, nor, cheating it with dangerous falsehoods and delusions, fill it with prejudices adverse to a sound understanding.

Now, in regard to the canonical Scriptures, he must follow the judgment of the greater number of catholic churches; and among these, of course, a high place must be given to such as have been thought worthy to be the seat of an apostle and to receive epistles.

Accordingly, among the canonical Scriptures he will judge according to the following standard: to prefer those that are received by all the catholic churches to those which some do not receive. Among those, again, which are not received by all, he will prefer such as have the sanction of the greater number and those of greater authority, to such as are held by the smaller number and those of less authority. If, however, he shall find that some books are held by the greater number of churches, and others by the churches of greater authority (though this is not a very likely thing to happen), I think that in such a case the authority on the two sides is to be looked upon as equal.

Now the whole canon of Scripture on which we say this judgment is to be exercised, is contained in the following books: — Five books of Moses, that is, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; one book of Joshua the son of Nun; one of Judges; one short book called Ruth, which seems rather to belong to the beginning of Kings; next, four books of Kings, and two of Chronicles— these last not following one another, but running parallel, so to speak, and going over the same ground. The books now mentioned are history, which contains a connected narrative of the times, and follows the order of the events.

There are other books which seem to follow no regular order, and are connected neither with the order of the preceding books nor with one another, such as Job, and Tobias, and Esther, and Judith, and the two books of Maccabees, and the two of Ezra, which last look more like a sequel to the continuous regular history which terminates with the books of Kings and Chronicles.

Next are the Prophets, in which there is one book of the Psalms of David; and three books of Solomon, viz., Proverbs, Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes. For two books, one called Wisdom and the other Ecclesiasticus, are ascribed to Solomon from a certain resemblance of style, but the most likely opinion is that they were written by Jesus the son of Sirach. Still they are to be reckoned among the prophetical books, since they have attained recognition as being authoritative.

The remainder are the books which are strictly called the Prophets: twelve separate books of the prophets which are connected with one another, and having never been disjoined, are reckoned as one book; the names of these prophets are as follows: — Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi; then there are the four greater prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel. The authority of the Old Testament is contained within the limits of these forty-four books.

That of the New Testament, again, is contained within the following: — Four books of the Gospel, according to Matthew, according to Mark, according to Luke, according to John; fourteen epistles of the Apostle Paul — one to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, one to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, two to the Thessalonians, one to the Colossians, two to Timothy, one to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews: two of Peter; three of John; one of Jude; and one of James; one book of the Acts of the Apostles; and one of the Revelation of John.

Notes on Augustine’s View of the Canon

1. Augustine recommends that Christians read and retain the content of the canonical books.

2. It is clear that in his day the canon was not fixed, since he does not include the Book of Lamentations (see below) and since he speaks of accepting as canonical only those books that were widely accepted by the church.

3. His canon of the Old Testament contains forty-four books. These books are divided as follows:

a. The five books of Moses: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.

b. The historical books: Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings (1 and 2 Samuel; 1 and 2 Kings), and 1 and 2 Chronicles.

c. Other books which he says are not connected: Job, Tobias, Esther, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, and the two books of Ezra (Ezra and Nehemiah).

d. The Wisdom books, which Augustine called “The Prophets.” These are: one book of the Psalms of David, three books of Solomon, that is, Proverbs, Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes, and Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, which Augustine believed were written by Jesus the son of Sirach.

e. The Prophetic books. Augustine lists the Minor Prophets first and then he lists the Major Prophets.

The Minor Prophets: Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi.

The Major Prophets: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, and Ezekiel.

Augustine does not mention the book of Lamentations which was excluded from his list of canonical books. In his list, Daniel precedes Ezekiel, probably following a chronological arrangement of the two books.

f. New Testament. Augustine is credited as the first person to list all the New Testament books as they appear in today’s Bibles. According to Augustine, the New Testament in composed of the following books:

Four Gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

Pauline Epistles: Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, and Hebrews. Augustine accepted the traditional view that Paul wrote Hebrews.

The Other Epistles: 1 and 2 Peter; 1, 2, and 3 John; Jude; and James.

The Other Books: The book of the Acts of the Apostles; and the Revelation of John.

Thus, it seems that the canon of the biblical books, including the New Testament, was almost fixed by the end of the fourth century. Although Augustine rejected the book of Lamentations, Jerome included the book in his translation of the Bible.

Before there was the canonical list of Augustine, there was the list developed by Athanasius in 367 A.D. In my next post I will compare Athanasius’ list with Augustine’s list.

Next in the series: Athanasius and the Canon.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Augustine, Bible, Canon

The Canon of the Old Testament

Today I begin a series of studies on the canon of the Old Testament. Although the Bible is the book of the church and although Christians everywhere recognize that the Bible is the Word of God, Christians (and Jews) look at the Bible from different perspectives.

This first study deals with the content of the Bible. The Bible is divided into two sections: the Old Testament and the New Testament. The word “Testament” comes from a Hebrew word (by the way of the Greek New Testament) which means “covenant.”

The name “Old Testament” reflects the Christian’s belief that the promise of a new covenant in Jeremiah 31:31-34 was fulfilled in Christ.

The Jewish people today call their scripture Tanak. It is also known as the Hebrew Bible. The word “Tanak” comes from an acronym made up of the initial consonants of the three major parts of the Hebrew Bible: Torah (Law), Nebiim (Prophets) and Kethubim (Writings).

The Canon of the Old Testament

The word “canon” is a Greek word derived from a Hebrew word which means “reed.” In the ancient Near East reeds were used as measuring sticks. The word also means “rule,” “list,” and “standard.” In Ezekiel 40:3, 5 the Hebrew word is translated as “a measuring reed.”

The canon is a body of authoritative literature which is directly related to the religious life of the community which treasures it. There are three accepted canons. First, the Jewish canon, also known as the “Palestinian canon,” contains 24 books. The Alexandrian canon, the canon used in the Catholic and Orthodox churches, contains 39 books plus additional books or additions to biblical books. These books are generally known as the Apocrypha or the Deuterocanonical books. The Protestant canon contains 39 books. These are the same books of the Palestinian canon, but organized in a different order.

The Protestant Canon

The Old Testament in the Protestant canon, found in most English Bibles, contains 39 books and is divided into four sections:

1. Pentateuch: 5 books

Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.

2. Historical Books: 12 books

Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, 2 Kings, 1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther.

3. Poetical Books: 5 books

Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs.

4. Prophetical Books: 17 books

(a) Major Prophets: 5 books

Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentation, Ezekiel, and Daniel.

(b) Minor Prophets: 12 books

Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi.

The Hebrew Bible (Tanak)

The Hebrew Bible, or the Palestinian canon, contains 24 books and it is divided into three sections:

1. Torah (Law or Teaching): 5 books

Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.

2. Nebiim (Prophets): 8 books

(a) Former Prophets: 4 books

Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings.

(b) Latter Prophets: 4 books

Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the Twelve.

3. Kethubim (Writings): 11 books

(a) Poetry: 3 books

Psalms, Job, and Proverbs.

(b) Megilloth (Festal Scrolls): 5 books

Song of Songs: read at Passover.

Ruth: read at the Feast of Weeks or Pentecost.

Lamentations: read on the ninth of Ab, the day Jerusalem was destroyed in 587 B.C.

Ecclesiastes (Qoheleth): read at the feast of Tabernacles (Feast of Booths).

Esther: read at the feast of Purim.

(c) The other writings: 3 books

Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, and Chronicles.

The Alexandrian Canon

The Alexandrian canon was compiled in Alexandria, Egypt by Jews who had adopted Greek culture and used the Greek language as the primary means of communication. The translation of Hebrew scriptures into Greek became known as the Septuagint (generally abbreviated as the LXX).

The Old Testament in the Alexandrian canon, contains the same books found in the Palestinian canon and several other books and addition to biblical books which were not included in the Palestinian canon. These are the books of the Alexandrian canon:

1. Pentateuch: 5 books

Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.

2. Historical Books: 16 books

Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, 2 Kings, 1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Tobit, Judith, Esther (including the additions to the book), 1 Maccabees, and 2 Maccabees.

3. Poetical Books: 7 books

Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom of Solomon, and Ecclesiasticus (also known as Wisdom of ben Sirach).

4. Prophetical Books: 17 books

(a) Major Prophets: 6 books

Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentation, Baruc (including the Letter of Jeremiah), Ezekiel, and Daniel (including The Prayer of Azariah, The Song of the Three Jews, Susanna, and Bel and the Dragon).

(b) Minor Prophets: 12 books

Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi.

The Orthodox Canon

The Orthodox canon is used in Orthodox churches. The Old Testament in the Orthodox Bible contains the same books found in the Palestinian canon, the additional books and addition to biblical books found in the Alexandrian canon plus other books and additions which were not included in the Palestinian nor the Alexandrian canons. These are the books of the Orthodox Bible:

1. Pentateuch: 5 books

Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.

2. Historical Books: 17 books

Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 Kingdoms (1 Samuel), 2 Kingdoms (2 Samuel), 3 Kingdoms (1 Kings), 4 Kingdoms (2 Kings), 1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles, 1 Esdras, 2 Esdras (Ezra, Nehemiah), Esther (including the additions to the book), Judith, Tobit, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, and 3 Maccabees (4 Maccabees appears in the appendix).

3. Poetical Books: 8 books

Psalms (including Psalm 151), Prayer of Manasseh, Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom of Solomon, and Ecclesiasticus (also known as Wisdom of ben Sirach).

4. Prophetical Books: 17 books

(a) Minor Prophets: 12 books

Hosea, Amos, Micah, Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi.

(b) Major Prophets: 6 books

Isaiah, Jeremiah, Baruc, Lamentation, Letter of Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel (including The Prayer of Azariah, The Song of the Three Jews, Susan