De Sacra Scriptura

By Severus Erasmus Chapter 1: The New Testament Which Canon? Im sure youve heard Dan Browns accusations against Christianity: he says that Constantine canonized the Bible at the Council of Nicaea. Well, Dan Brown is a liar. In actuality, it was St. Athanasius the Miaphysite, who developed the canon of the New Testament. This was done in 367AD. Athanasius was a Coptic Orthodox Pope; he was not even a Roman Catholic, so the allegation to the effect that the Roman Church formed the canon of the New Testament is entirely false. With regards to the Council of Nicaea, I must point out the fact that Nicaea did not discuss the canon of Scripture at all. Nicaea discussed the relationship between the Father and the Son, not which books were to be regarded as Scripture. For the most part, Athanasius canon of the New Testament has been universally accepted. No one (at least, no one that proposed a canon) has ever really contested Athanasius canon. The hot debates about the Bible canon have always been in relation to the Old Testament, not the New Testament. Out of all of the early Christian literature, only about ten books were regarded as semi-canonical. These books are very similar to the ones included in the Bible and they are still widely read and highly esteemed by catholic and orthodox Christians today. I will admit that the early Church did not have a set canon in the sense that we do today; different churches included different books in their Bibles. This, however, was not a big issue prior to the Reformation. Whatever was put outside of the biblical canon of one church, but accepted by other churches, was not rejected altogether. A book put outside of the canon of Scripture was usually included in the canon of Tradition, so that the church still used those books as well. You see this in both the Old and New Testaments. For example: Enoch, Jubilees, Barnabas, Didache, 1 and 2 Clement, Laodiceans, 3 Corinthians, Shepherd of Hermes, et cetera were accepted as canonical by certain churches and by certain of the early Church fathers. These books came to be put outside of the biblical canon in the western churches, but they are included in the canon of Tradition. In some of the eastern churches, these books are included in the canon of the Bible to this day. The issues concerning the canon of the Bible did not become important until the Reformation, when the Protestants rejected Tradition, meaning that the Reformers did not accept the books outside the canon of Scripture at all. In the early Church, the Bible was not the entirety of the Scriptures per se. The Bible was merely a collection of books that were considered most important; they were the books that needed to be read by everyone. The other books, which were regarded as Sacred Tradition, were meant to be used by theologians and clergymen, but did not have to be studied by the laity. All Christians were encouraged to study the Bible, but only the clergy were required to study Tradition. Which Manuscript Tradition? Well, there are only three different manuscript traditions of the Greek New Testament. There are the Byzantine-type manuscripts, which make up the majority of all the ancient manuscripts we possess, and there is the Textus Receptus. These two manuscript traditions are very similar. I will only adress the Textus Receptus. There is no reason to go into the Byzantine text separately because it is almost identical to the Textus

Receptus. The other manuscript tradition is the Alexandrian-type, which has its origin with Eusebius the pseudo-historian. All three of these manuscript traditions were in circulation in ancient times. The three oldest copies of the Bible are: Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, and Alexandrinus.1 Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are of the Alexandrian-type, while Alexandrinus is a fusion of both the Alexandrian-type and the Byzantine-type. We have about 5,000 ancient Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. Only about 30 of those manuscripts are of the Alexandrian-type. Out of the Alexandrian-type manuscripts, not a single one is complete. The Alexandrian manuscripts that we have are very old: they have portions of the text missing, gaps, and holes in the manuscripts. Plus, there are thousands of careless mistakes and scribal errors in them. The Alexandrian-type texts comprise less than 5% of all the Greek manuscripts that survive. When the Codex Sinaiticus was found, it was laying in a trash heap because the monks knew that it was unreliable. Even the Coptic Church of Alexandria (which survives to this day) does not use the so-called Alexandrian text. In fact, most English speaking Coptic priests prefer the King James Version, which is based on the Textus Receptus. 95% of Greek manuscripts bear witness to the Receptus-Byzantine text. -On the Textus Receptus The Textus Receptus is to be preferred above the Alexandrian-type text. There are many scholars that criticize the Textus Receptus. (Most of them are anti-Christian scholars like Bart Ehrman.) I would like to highlight some of the objections and accusations made against the Receptus, and then I will go about defending the Receptus. There are several verses and passages that scholars claim are later additions which are found in the Receptus, but missing from the Alexandrian-type manuscripts. Lets examine each of these so-called later additions individually. The first point of criticism is the Johannine Comma. Scholars claim that the following verse is not authentic because it doesnt appear in the ancient Alexandrian versions. The passage reads: For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one.(1 John 5:7) It is noteworthy that this is the clearest reference to the Trinity found in Scripture. If we look to the writings of the early Christians, we can find references to this passage, which shows that it was found in the Bible, even in the most ancient times. For example, St. Cyprian quoted this verse in AD 251:
The Lord says, I and the Father are one; and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.(ANF05, Cyprian, The Treatises of Cyprian, On the Unity of the Church, 6)

This clearly testifies to the fact that the Johannine Comma was found in the Bible prior to 251AD, about a century before the oldest surviving copy of the Bible was written. The second point is the ending of Mark (verses 16:9-20), which is not found in the Alexandrian-type manuscripts. However, again, there are early Church fathers that testify that these verses appeared in the ancient versions. In AD 180, Irenaeus wrote:
Also, towards the conclusion of his Gospel, Mark says: So then, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God.(ANF01, Irenaeus, Against Heresies: Book III, 5)

I dont think that it is possible to say which of these is the oldest. The method of dating ancient manuscripts is relative, so we cannot say for certain which one is oldest.

This shows that verse 16:19 was found in the Bible prior to AD 180. This reference is two centuries older than the oldest manuscript of the New Testament. Also, the Peshittas Aramaic New Testament (AD 360) and the Codex Washingtonianus (AD 450) contain the ending of Mark. So, there is considerable evidence supporting the longer ending of Mark. Plus, the Alexandrian scribes themselves left extra space at the end of the Gospel of Mark, indicating that they were aware that part of the text was missing. Plus, this same account is told elsewhere in the Bible, so if the text is removed, it does not change anything as far as Christian doctrine is concerned. (Cf. Luke 24:51; Acts 1:9-11) Another point made by anti-Receptus scholars is that 1 Timothy 3:16, in the Alexandriantype manuscripts of the Bible says, (who was manifest in the flesh) rather than (God was manifest in the flesh). Let us appeal to the early Church fathers again. Theodoret (AD 393-457) quoted this verse as saying, God was manifest in the flesh.(NPNF2-03, The Ecclesiastical History, Dialogues, and Letters of Theodoret, Dialogues, The Immutable)2 This particular quotation happens to be about the same age as the oldest manuscript of the New Testament. So, this verse did appear in ancient versions of the Bible. It must also be noted that the book of Timothy is not included in the Chester Beatty papyrus or the Vaticanus manuscript, so Sinaiticus is basically on its own in giving the alternative reading of who was manifest... Plus, an editor of Sinaiticus made a correction immediately after it was written, testifying to the fact that God was manifest... is the correct reading and the initial scribe had made a mistake. So, in actuality, there is little manuscript evidence in support of the critics view. It is true that certain verses, which confirm the deity of Christ in the majority of the ancient manuscripts, do not confirm the deity of Christ in the Alexandrian manuscripts. But, the inverse is also true. Verses that do not specifically imply the deity of Christ in the majority of the ancient manuscripts do imply the deity of Christ in the Alexandrian manuscripts. For example: the Byzantine-Receptus of John 1:18 reads, 3 (only-begotten son), whereas the Vaticanus, and other Alexandrian manuscripts, read, (only-begotten God).4 So, the Alexandrian manuscripts also confirm the deity of Christ. The other major objection is to the Pericope Adulterae. Scholars claim that this account (i.e. John 8:111) is not authentic because it is not in the oldest manuscripts. However, we shall turn, yet again, to the early Church fathers. Didymus the Blind (AD 313-398) makes a referance to this particular portion of Scripture:
We find then in certain gospels a woman, it says, was condemned by the Jews for a sin and was being sent to be stoned in the place where that was customary to be done. The Saviour, it says, when he saw her and observed that they were prepared to stone her, to those intending to cast the stones upon her he said, Whoever has not sinned, let him lift up a stone and cast it....[that is,] If anyone thinks himself not to have sinned, let him take a stone and smite her. And no one dared, since they understood among themselves and knew that they themselves were also guilty in some things: so they did not dare to strike her.(Didymus the Blind, Commentary on Ecclesiastes)

This quote proves that this passage was indeed found in the Bible in ancient times; it is not just some addition that was inserted later.
2 3

He quotes this verse as saying God twice in the same work. in the cursive script 4 The Bodmer II papyrus (ca. 100-150 AD) agrees with Vaticanus in saying only-begotten God in John 1:18.

-On the Alexandrian-type One peculiar thing about the Alexandrian-type manuscripts is that they actually left blank spaces where certain portions of Scripture are missing from their manuscripts, indicating that they were aware of the passages that they did not include. They did not simply leave the passage out as if they were unaware of its existence. These blank spaces show that the scribes were actually aware of the passages, but chose not to include them for some reason; this means that the Alexandrian manuscripts actually provide evidence in support of the authenticity of the passages that it does not include. We also have reason to believe that the Alexandrian-type manuscripts are corrupt. The Alexandrian-type texts trace back to Eusebius of Caesarea. Eusebius was commissioned by Constantine to produce several hundred copies of the Bible. The Alexandrian-type manuscripts are those that were produced by Eusebius. The problem is: Eusebius was an outright heretic. So his version of the Bible cannot be trusted in the first place. Eusebius embraced the heresy of Arianism, which was condemned at the Council of Nicaea. He did not believe in the Trinity (which might be why he removed 1 John 5:7 from his editions of the Bible); he did not believe in the deity of Christ (which is probably why he modified 1 Timothy 3:16 in his editions of the Bible); he never refered to Christ as God, but only as the Word. In fact, Eusebius was almost excommunicated for heresy at the First Ecumenical Council. We have many good reasons to take Eusebius with a grain of salt. Eusebius was a very unreliable person. He was prone to lying if it helped support his convictions. In fact, the historian Jacob Burckhardt is said to have once remarked that Eusebius was the first thoroughly dishonest historian of antiquity. Eusebius identified the Therapeutic-Essenic Jews as Christians, claiming that they were St. Marks followers (i.e. Coptic Orthodox). However, this has no basis in fact. We now know that the Essenes were around way before the birth of Christ. We also have some accounts given by Eusebius that just dont quite pan out. Eusebius tells us that Philo actually met St. Peter in Rome, but Philo died about a year before Peter first traveled to Rome5, so Philo could not have actually met Peter in Rome. (Cf. NPNF2-1, The Church History of Eusebius, Book 2, 16-17) Furthermore, the Alexandrian-type texts are choppy by themselves: Sinaiticus is the product of no less than ten scribes. In fact, Sinaiticus has more places in the manuscript where additional scribes made corrections to the original text than there are verses in the New Testament. The Alexandrian scribes would often copy a verse, and then pick up at a different verse with a similar ending, unintentionally leaving out several verses in between. The scribes behind these versions were uneducated armatures, whereas the Receptus-Byzantine scribes were experienced and hardly ever made such mistakes. I propose that all Christians with knowledge of Greek should practice textual criticism in order to determine what is actually authentic and what is not. We should examine the different manuscripts and the quotations of the Bible in the writings of the early Church fathers and thereby logically determine what is, and what is not, authentic. After all, wasnt textual criticism what Origen of Alexandria was doing when he wrote the Hexapla? And isnt textual criticism what Jerome was doing when he compared Aquilas version to the Hebrew version of the Old Testament? (Cf. NPNF2-06, The Letters of St.
5

The year in which Peter first traveled to Rome is provided by Eusebius himself.

Jerome, Letter XXXII, To Marcella) Textual criticism is not a secular thing; it began as a Christian practice with the early Church fathers! A side note about the deceptive scholars: I think it must be said that the scholars and textual critics cannot be trusted; they are often very deceptive. For example, they will point out that 1 Tim. 3:16 isnt contained in Codex Vaticanus or the Chester Beatty papyrus, but they leave out the fact that this is because the entirety of Pauls Epistles to Timothy are not included in these manuscripts. They also point to Alexandrinus and say that it does not include the Johannine Comma, but this is also deceptive because the entire chapter is missing from Alexandrinus due to a gap in the manuscript. Many of the texts are very fragmentary to begin with. If you are going to accept the Alexandrian reading of 1 Tim. 3:16, as scholars say you should, should you not also accept the Alexandrian reading of John 1:18? Oh, but the godless scholars would have you accept the Alexandrian text at one point and reject it at another, in order to remove the deity of Christ from Scripture! Be a textual critic, but do not listen to the non-Orthodox textual critics and scholars. Rely on your own knowledge and understanding, not on the words of men who do not believe. Which Translation? For those who do not speak Greek, John Wesleys translation of the New Testament is the most reliable English version. Its not perfect, but it is the best English translation yet. The King James Version is the second best thing (as far as English versions go), but it has many errors. There are many heretics today that say the King James Version is the inerrant Word of God. In actuality, the King James Version is not very reliable. Allow me to point out a couple of the obvious errors. In the King James Version, in Hebrews 4:8, where it says Jesus, it should actually say Joshua. The name Jesus (Iesus in Greek) is the translation of the Hebrew name Yahshua, or Joshua. Paul was actually talking about the Old Testament prophet, not Christ. The King James Version of Luke [23:43] is a biased rendering in favor of anti-purgatorial teachings. There is no punctuation in the original Greek. It could also be rendered, Verily I say to you today, you shall be with me in paradise. This rendering is also perfectly compatible with the Greek and it allows for the doctrine of Purgatory. Plus, we know that no one enters heaven until after Judgment Day, so the Protestant theory that one can go directly to heaven after death is completely unbiblical in the first place.6 Anti-Christians often quote the King James translation of Colossians 1:15 as an argument against the deity of Christ. In contrast to the King James Version, the original Greek of
6

The only exceptions being Christ, Enoch, and Elijah

Colossians 1:15 does not imply that Christ was created. Prototokos is mistranslated as first-born, but the Greek doesnt necessarily mean that Christ was the first created being. In the Greek, Christ is the one creating, not the one being created: that is, from Christ was born every creature. Compare the word prototokos with the word theotokos7 or Mother of God, which refers to Mary, who bore God in her womb. In fact, Barclay M. Newmans Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament renders the phrase prototokos pases ktiseos, in Colossians 1:15, as existing before all creation or superior to all creation, because the word protos can mean first or before. So, from the word (i.e. prototokos) itself, it is not clear whether Christ is the one being born or the one bearing. So, lets look at the verse if we translate it in the other sense:
[Christ] is the image of the invisible God, the first-bearer of every creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible...all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.(Colossians 1:15-17)

Now, if we take it in this second sense, as first-bearer or existing before all creation rather than first-born, then the passage makes perfect sense in context. Lets look at a related portion of Scripture:
All things were made by [Christ]; and without him was not anything made that was made.(John 1:3)

If nothing was made without him, then he could not have been made or created. This means that my rendering of Colossians 1:15 is correct. As far as New Testament translations go, none of them are perfect, but John Wesleys is the most reliable. The King James Version is the next best thing after Wesleys version. Even with an English translation, I think that anyone interested in theology must have some knowledge of Greek. Chapter 2: The Old Testament Which Canon? The Septuagint is the most reliable version of the Old Testament; its canon (with the Apocrypha) should be preferred above all others. First, lets discuss the history surrounding the canon of the Old Testament. In the 2nd and 3rd Centuries AD, the Pharisees developed a new method of interpreting the Scriptures.
[They] introduced symbolic thinking and symbolic language into their speculations. They abandoned the ordinary meanings of words, gave numerical values to letters, and attributed mystical properties to both letters and numbers.(Max I. Dimont, Jews, God and History, P. 268-269)

The original Bible was no longer compatible with Pharisaic theology; thus, they decided to change the Bible.
The dissatisfaction with which the LXX8 was regarded by the Jewish leaders of the second century was perhaps not altogether due to polemical causes. The LXX did not suit the newer school of [Jewish] interpretation, it did not correspond with the received text.9 An official text differing considerably from the text accepted in earlier times had received the approval of the Rabbis, and the Alexandrian version, which represented the older text, began to be suspected and to pass into disuse.(H. B. Swete, Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, P. 27)
7 8 9

From theos (God) and tokos (to bear or be born) i.e. the Septuagint
Robertson Smith, The O.T .in the J. Ch., p.64; cf .ib.p.87 f. ; Kirkpatrick, Divine Library , p.63 ff.; cf. Buhl, p.118 f.

The Jews attempted to replace the Septuagint version with an alternative Greek version: that of Aquila. The problem with Aquilas version is that it is not a very literal translation (although some scholars claim that it is); it was manipulated and translated in such a way so as to remain compatible with the Pharisaic interpretation of Scripture. This is a debate to be argued elsewhere though.
Enough has been said to shew the absurdity of Aquilas method when it is regarded from the standpoint of the modern translator. Even in ancient times such a translation could never have attained to the popularity which belonged to the LXX.; that it was widely accepted by the Greek synagogues of the Empire can only have been due to the prejudice created in its favour by its known adherence to the standard text and the traditional exegesis.(H. B. Swete, Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, P. 35)

Even St. Jerome, who sympothised with the Pharisees, pointed out that Aquilas translation was corrupt.
Let me tell you, then, that for some time past I have been comparing Aquilas version of the Old Testament with the scrolls of the Hebrew, to see if from hatred to Christ the synagogue has changed the text; and to speak frankly to a friend I have found several variations which confirm our faith.(NPNF2-06, The Letters of St. Jerome, Letter XXXII, To Marcella)

Protestants traditionally use the Pharisaic version of the Old Testament, but why should we follow the canon of the Pharisees? Are they not the group that Christ criticized and detested the most? (Cf. Matthew 3:7, 12:34, 15:3-14, 16:6, 19:3-9, 22:18, 23:13-36; Mark 7:6-13, 8:15, 10:2-5; Luke 7:30, 11:39-54, 12:1) Why not follow the canon of another group of Jews: maybe the canon of the rest of the Jewish world? The reason that the Pharisees rejected the Apocrypha10 was because they claimed that the age of prophecy had ended immediately after the return of the exiles from Babylon. The Pharisees used the argument that the age of prophecy has ceased against the Christians. They say that Christ and John the Baptist could not have been prophets because the age of prophecy had already ended. They claim that the Messiah will be a mere political leader, not a spiritual leader. The idea that the age of prophecy had ceased is the basis on which the Pharisees rejected both the Apocrypha and Jesus Christ.11 The Orthodox Bible is a continuous narative from the beginning of time (in Genesis) to the end of time (in Revelation). The Protestant Bible has a 450 year gap in the record where the Apocrypha should be. The Protestant Bible does not record the events that led up to the Roman occupation of Israel. And it doesnt even mention the Seleucid occupation of Israel, which is somewhat important historically. Especially considering the fact that the New Testament is written in Greek, and the Seleucid occupation is what made Greek the common tongue in Palestine. Catholics use a modified version of the Old Testament, which partially follows the Septuagint and partially follows the Masoretic text. Orthodox Christians use the Septuagint version. All Christians should accept the Septuagint with all of its parts. In the 3rd Century BC, Ptolemy II Philadelphus ordered the 72 most educated Jewish elders to translate the books of the Tanakh (i.e. the Old Testament) into Greek. The Septuagint is the Greek translation that they produced. The Apocrypha were not just
10

The Apocrypha are ten books that are contained in the Septuagint, but missing from the Masoretic Hebrew version. 11 This is in contradiction to Scripture though: Daniel [9:24] implies that the age of prophecy would end with the Messiah. Daniel [9:27] also implies that the age of prophecy continued for a short time after the Messiahs death. If the Messiah has not come, as Pharisaic Jews claim, then how could the age of prophecy have ceased?

written in Greek; they actually appeared in the original Hebrew manuscript of the Old Testament. However, the original manuscript is no longer in existence. The Septuagint is one of the closest things to the original that we have. The Septuagint is the oldest existing copy of the Old Testament in any language; it is the version of the Old Testament that appears in every copy of the Christian Bible from prior to the Protestant Reformation, and it is the version of the Old Testament quoted in the New Testament. 93% of the Old Testament quotations that occur in the New Testament are in agreement with the Septuagint text. The New Testament only agrees with the Masoretic text over the Septuagint 8 times. Protestants follow the Pharisaic version and therefore reject the Apocrypha (i.e. the books included in the Septuagint, but missing from the Pharisaic version). Protestants argue, The Apocrypha are excluded from the Jewish canon and the Jews never accepted the Catholic Apocrypha. But that is not a logical argument for the rejection of the Apocrypha. Its not even a truthful argument! The modern Pharisaic Jewish canon was not canonized until two hundred years after the birth of Christ. Plus, the Jews used to accept the Apocrypha, and some Jews still do!12 The Septuagint was the version of the Old Testament used by the Jews during the Second Temple Period. It is also the Greek version of the Old Testament that is quoted in the New Testament. Philo and Josephus (two very influencial Jews of the 1st Century) considered the Septuagint to be the authoritative, divinely inspired version of the Scriptures. Also, the Babylonian Talmud suggests that the Septuagint text was considered an authoritative version by the early Rabbinical Jews.13 The Talmud even quotes the apocryphal books.14 One should also note that, while the Apocrypha are not considered canonical by Pharisaic Jews, they still rely heavily on the Apocrypha. For example, Abraham Cohen (one of the most prevalent modern Jewish theologians) makes references to the Apocrypha countless times throughout his works.15 Indeed, all modern Jews celibrate hanukkah, which is a tradition that comes directly from the Septuagints Apocrypha. (Cf. 1 Maccabees 4:56-59; 2 Maccabees 10) Plus, we have the witness of Jewish literature from the 1st Century that tells us that the Septuagint was held in higher esteem that the Hebrew version:
And when the forty days were ended, the Most High spoke to me, saying, Make public the twenty-four books that you wrote first and let the worthy and the unworthy read them; but keep the Seventy that were written last, in order to give them to the wise among your people. For in them is the spring of understanding, the fountain of wisdom, and the river of knowledge.(2 Esdras 14:45-47)

The Seventy refers to the Septuagint (Septuaginta, Latin for Seventy). The Jews considered the twenty-four book Hebrew canon to be less authoritative than the Greek. The Hebrew canon was allowed to be read by anyone, even the unworthy read them.
12 13

For example: Beta Israel , the Ethiopian Jews cf. Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Megillah, 9a-9b 14 Sirach 3:21 in Chagigah 13a, Sirach 42:9 in Sanhedrin 100b, and Tobit 4:15 in Shabbath 31a, etc.; cf. Abraham Cohen, Everymans Talmud, pp. 27, 171, 214, 219, and 221; ...[Sirach] did not become part of the Hebrew canon of Scripture, which served as the basis for the Protestant Old Testament. Nevertheless, Sirach was frequently quoted in the Talmud and other Rabbinic works.... Many Greek church fathers (Clement of Alexandria, Origen, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Jerusalem) and Latin fathers (Tertullian, Cyprian, Jerome, Augustine) quoted or incorporated material from Sirach in their own works.(Daniel J. Harrington, Invitation to the Apocrypha, P. 90) 15 Cf. Abraham Cohen, Everymans Talmud, intro. pp. xxxvii-xxxviii, and pp. 27, 171, 214, 219, 221,etc.

However, in the Septuagint is the spring of understanding, the fountain of wisdom, and the river of knowledge; the Seventy was to be reserved for the wise. It was held as a higher authority than the Hebrew. The Wisdom that is hidden (apokruphos) in the Septuagint is Christ: for Christ [is] the power of God, and the Wisdom of God.(1 Corinthians 1:24) Prior to the time of Christ, the Jews believed that the Septuagint translation was guided by divine inspiration and that the Septuagint was the authoritative version; we know this from Jewish historians like Aristobulus and Aristeas. Even the Jews during the time of Christ (like Philo and Josephus) and the Apostolic Fathers believed that the Septuagint was divinely inspired. Lets look at what one early Christian writer had to say about the issue:
And to correct the Latin we must use the Greek versions, among which the authority of the Septuagint is preeminent as far as the Old Testament is concerned; for it is reported through all the more learned churches that the seventy translators enjoyed so much of the presence and power of the Holy Spirit in their work of translation, that among that number of men there was but one voice. And if, as is reported, and as many not unworthy of confidence assert, they were separated during the work of translation, each man being in a cell by himself, and yet nothing was found in the manuscript of any one of them that was not found in the same words and in the same order of words in all the rest, who dares put anything in comparison with an authority like this, not to speak of preferring anything to it? And even if they conferred together with the result that a unanimous agreement sprang out of the common labour and judgment of them all; even so, it would not be right or becoming for any one man, whatever his experience, to aspire to correct the unanimous opinion of many venerable and learned men. Wherefore, even if anything is found in the original Hebrew in a different form from that in which these men have expressed it, I think we must give way to the dispensation of Providence which used these men to bring it about, that books which the Jewish race were unwilling, either from religious scruple or from jealousy, to make known to other nations, were, with the assistance of the power of King Ptolemy, made known so long beforehand to the nations which in the future were to believe in the Lord. And thus it is possible that they translated in such a way as the Holy Spirit, who worked in them and had given them all one voice, thought most suitable for the Gentiles.(Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, book 2, 22)

In the minds of the ancient Jews and early Christians, there was no question as to the authority of the Septuagint. All of the ante-Nicene fathers (i.e. Christians prior to the Council of Nicaea) accepted the Apocrypha, without any doubts. The canonicity of these books wasnt questioned by anyone, until the Jews rejected them in the 3rd Century. In fact, every copy of the Christian Bible, prior to the year 1782, included the Apocrypha. The Epistle of Barnabas, 1 Clement, and the Didache are the oldest Christian writings outside of the New Testament (all written in the 1st Century), and they all quote the Apocrypha. The authors of these works are mentioned with aproval in the New Testament. Furthermore, these three works were considered canonical by many of the early Christians. These books are included in the oldest manuscripts of the Christian Bible. God had the seventy-two Jewish scribes at Alexandria translate the Old Testament into Greek so that His seventy-two Jewish disciples (cf. Luke 10:1, Westcott & Hort) in Palestine would have an authoritative Greek version of the Scriptures to use. To suggest that any corruption came to this version is heresy: for God himself said, Not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.(Matthew 5:18) Which is to say, No corruption can come to the Scriptures. He does not say, not a yod, but not an

iota, speaking of a Greek letter. Christ always quoted from the Septuagint version. He was speaking of the Greek text when he said that the Scriptures would not see corruption. He could not have been talking about the Hebrew text. We know as a fact that the Hebrew text used by the Jews today is not the same as the original; the anceint Hebrew manuscripts of the Dead Sea Scrolls have proven that. I believe the word of Christ; not an iota, not a dot, not a single passage in the Septuagint text has been corrupted. It has been preserved by God Almighty. The Septuagint is the most authoritative version, having been created by direct divine inspiration. The process of the translation of the Old Testament into the Greek of the Septuagint was guided not only by the Holy Spirit, but by the fullness of the Trinity; for had the Septuagint translation not taken the Scriptures of the Jews to the Gentiles, the Apostles would not have been able to convert the Gentiles by means of using arguments from the Jewish Scriptures. Not only was it of the utmost importance to Christ for the Holy Texts to be in circulation in the common language throughout the lands of the Gentiles, it was also important for the translation of the Scriptures in circulation to be accurate; otherwise, the Apostles would not have had an authoritative version of the Old Testament in common with their Gentile readers. If their was no authoritative version in common to both the Apostles and the Gentile readers, then the Apostles would not have been able to use arguments from Scripture in their writings, nor would they be able to convince the Gentiles by pointing to the messianic prophecies, because the Gentiles would have had no way of substantiating the claims of the Apostles. Without the Septuagint, Christianity could not have been spread to the Gentiles. Since the Septuagint was essential to the mission that Christ gave to the Apostlesso essential that the Apostles could not have succeeded in converting the Gentiles without itI propose that it was Gods direct inspiration that led to the Septuagint translation. God directly played a part in the Septuagint translation, getting the complete authoritative translation of the Hebrew Bible to the Gentiles just in time for Christs commission to the Apostlesi.e. to spread Christianity. (Cf. Matthew 28:19-20) With the Septuagint being translated under direct inspiration, guidance, and participation of the Godhead, there is absolutely no need for us to rely on any other version.16 The biggest issue dividing Protestantism and Orthodoxy in the Septuagint vs. Masoretic text debate is the authority of the Apocrypha. So, the accusations and arguments made by the heretics must be addressed. Every Christian will openly admit that the New Testament is divinely inspired. The Old Testament quoted in the New Testament is the Septuagint; so the divinely inspired New Testament bears witness to the divine inspiration of the Septuagint. If the Septuagint was an inaccurate translation (as the Protestants claim), the New Testament writers would have just translated the verses that they quoted as they went because they spoke both Hebrew and Greek fluently. The very fact that they did not translate as they went (which is no problem for someone fluent in both languages), but chose to use the Septuagint as their authority, shows that they accepted the Septuagint as being divinely inspired and authoritative, and, thus, superior to the Masoretic text. St. Paul said,
16

We can use other versions for comparison, or examination of words in the process of exegesis; however, we must rely on the Septuagint as our authoritative version and exalt it above all other versions because of the authority it has due to the direct part the Godhead played in its translation.

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine...(2 Timothy 3:16)

When Paul said all scripture, he was confirming the authority of the Apocrypha. The version of the Old Testament quoted by Paul was the Septuagint. When Paul said all scripture, he was implying everything found in the Septuagint. Pauls rather lengthy quotation of Psalm 14:3 in Romans 3:12-18 is taken directly from the Septuagint. His text quotes the Septuagint word-for-word. Plus, the version of the text cited by Paul does not even appear in the Masoretic text; it is only found in the Septuagint.17 So, by Paul saying that all scripture is inspired, and his use of the Septuagint as his authoritative version, he is indirectly confirming the authority of the Apocrypha. The Apostles were aware that the Greek Septuagint used by their readers differed from the Hebrew text. If they did not accept those books that the Septuagint included but the Hebrew did not, wouldnt they have made it a point to mention that? The Apostles relied on the Septuagint, using it as the basis for their arguments on key doctrinal issues, such as the virgin birth and the deity of Christ.18 So, we are given only a few options: 1) The Apostles, along with Jesus himself, were ignorant and unaware that the Hebrew differed from the Septuagint. (To make such a claim is a heresy!) 2) Jesus and the Apostles knew that the Hebrew was in disagreement with the Greek, viewed the Hebrew as authoritative, but quoted from the Greek in order to decieve people. (To make such a claim is a heresy!) 3) The Apostles were aware of the differences between the Hebrew and the Greek, but viewed the Septuagint as divinely inspired and fully authoritative. Thus, they quoted from the version which was most reliable. Paul says in Scripture, For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God...(2 Corinthians 2:17) Now, Paul could not have been refering to the New Testament when he said, word of God: for Paul was the first New Testament writer, and the New Testament books had not been written yet. So, he must have been refering to the Old Testament. In saying that there was a corrupt word of God, he was refering to the Hebrew text, which had been corrupted by the Pharisees. Since the Hebrew text was corrupt, the Apostles used the Septuagint, which Christ guaranteed would not see corruption. (Cf.Matthew 5:18) The phrase kingdom of God is used 68 times in the New Testament. It shows up nowhere in the Protestant Old Testament, however, it does show up in the Apocrypha. (Cf. Wisdom 10:10) It is very likely that the phrase was borrowed from the Apocrypha. Jeremiah 36 tells us about the apocryphal book of Baruch. Whyif the prophets accepted the book of Baruchwas it removed from the Bible? St. Pauls argument for the existence of God is taken directly from the Apocrypha. (See Romans 1:19-23 and Wisdom 13) Paul follows Wisdom perfectly. Firstly, they both explain that the existence of God can be known through observing nature. Secondly, they both explain that people have known God through his creation, but erred and turned to
17

The portion quoted in Romans 3:12 can be found in the Masoretic text; however, verses 3:13-18 parallel the Septuagint version, and are not found in the Masoretic text at all. 18 Matthew [1:23] relies on Isaiah [7:14] from the Septuagint version with regards to the virgin birth. Hebrews [6:1] relies on the LXXs Deuteronomy [32:43] as an argument for the deity of Christ. (If the angels of God worship the Son, and worship is due to God alone, then the Son must be God.) The Hebrew version does not render the same way and cannot be used in defense of these doctrines.

idolatry. Pauls doctrine of Original Sin is also taken directly from the Apocrypha. (Cf. Romans 5 and Sirach 25:24) The Apocrypha were included in the versions of the Bible used by Christ and the Apostles. If Christ and the Apostles accepted the Septuagint, then who are we to reject it? Every Christian should prefer the Orthodox Bible over the Protestant Bible for this reason! If the Septuagint was good enough for Christ and the Apostles, its good enough for me! The Protestants and Jews, who are opposed to the Septuagints Apocrypha, argue that the Septuagint originally only included the Five Books of Moses, and that the rest was added later. However, the evidence is to the contrary. In all probability the interval between the commencemnet and the conclusion of the work was not great.19 The basis for the Protestant argument is that the term Law literally only refers to the Five Books of Moses, and the Jewish historians say that the Septuagint was a translation of the Law. But, I would point out that the term Law was clearly extended to mean the entirety of the Old Testament. This is the way that the term was used by Jesus. The extended use of the term Law to refer to the entirety of the Jewish Scriptures is used by Christ in John 10:34, where he says, Is it not written in your Law... and continues to quote from Psalms, which is not one of the Five Books of Moses, showing that Law refers to the entirety of the Old Testament. The Protestants have put forth an allegation that Philo never quoted the Apocrypha, but, in actuality, Philo did quote the Apocrypha. He quotes Sirach and Wisdom plenty of times!20 So, the claim that Philo rejected the Apocrypha is entirely false. Protestants also point to Josephus and say that he used a 22-book canon, thinking that this is evidence for the Protestant canon over the Orthodox canon. However, let me point out the flaw in that argument: the Protestant canon of the Old Testament contains 24 books, not 22. So, that puts a damper on the argument from Josephus. Furthermore, Josephus quoted extensively from the apocryphal book of 1 Esdras.21 He did not reject the Apocrypha. The Apocrypha were still being used by the Jews in the Talmudic era, after the split between Judaism and Christianity. The early Rabbinical Jews often cited Hebrew and Aramaic versions that were closer to the Septuagint than the Masoretic version.
The Midrash, when it quotes Job 23:12, reads mecheki (from my bosom) instead of mechukkim, as in the recieved text, which is translated more than my necessary food. It is noteworthy that the Septuagint and Vulgate also read the text in the sense of in my bosom.(Abraham Cohen, Everymans Talmud, P. 2, footnote 3)

I follow the Old Testament canon determined by the Jews, prior to the separation of Judaism and Christianity. Protestants follow the revised Old Testament canon created by the Pharisaic Talmudists long after the time of Christ. Many antagonists say that the Jews at the Council of Jamnia around 100AD determined the Old Testament canon. But there is no actual evidence that the modern Pharisaic canon came into being at that time. The first time the Council of Jamnia was ever mentioned was by Heinrich Graetz, in 1871. There is actually no evidence to support the claim that such a council even existed. In actuality the Pharisaic Jewish canon wasnt put together in the Jamnian fashion until
19

Sir Lancelot C. L. Brenton, The Septuagint with Apocrypha, Introduction. An Historical Account of the Septuagint Version, P. III 20 Cf. The Canon Debate, McDonald & Sanders editors, page 132 21 Cf. Raymond E. Brown, The Jerome Biblical Commentary, vol. 2, p. 542; David A. DeSilva, Introducing the Apocrypha, p. 284

around 200AD, at the earliest. Furthermore, even if the Council of Jamnia did take place, the argument would still be irrelevant because the Pharisaic canon is still not the original canon, and it was still put together by the Pharisees after the split between Judaism and Christianity. The Judaism that prevails in Israel and the West today is not the same Judaism as that of Christ. Christianity had its origin in a different form of Judaism, in one of the other Judaisms of the 1st Century, not in Talmudic Judaism. Furthermore, the Jews disputed over many books (as to their canonicity, that is) well into the 2nd Century22, and they did not come to an agreement until the 3rd Century, whereas the Christians had accepted the Septuagint canon since the very beginning: this is testified to by the fact that the Apostles themselves used the Septuagint Bible.
At first [the Jews] withdrew Proverbs, Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes because they spoke parables and did not belong to the Scriptures.... The Sages sought to withdraw the Book of Ecclesiastes.... Also the Book of Proverbs they sought to withdraw.... Likewise in connection with the Book of Esther there was doubt as to whether it was not an unwarranted addition to Scripture.(Abraham Cohen, Everymans Talmud, pp. 143-144)

Some of the Talmudic Rabbis even pushed to exclude the Book of Ezekiel from the canon.23 Does this not show that they intended to corrupt the word of God(2 Corinthians 2:17)? A typical Protestant argument against the Apocrypha is: The Apocrypha are never directly quoted in the New Testament. My response is this: there are 12 books of the Protestant Old Testament that are never quoted in the New Testament. (That is, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Lamentations, Obadiah, Nahum, and Zephaniah.) Shouldnt they be rejected too, according to this logic? The Protestant argument that comes next is: The non-quoted books are part of a larger collection of books that are recorded together. They are part of the Tanakh, which is quoted in the New Testament. This argument is a logical fallacy. The modern version of the Tanakh was not canonized until 200AD, or later. At the time that the New Testament was written, the Apocrypha were included in the Jewish Scriptures. Now, getting back to the original argument: that the Apocrypha arent quoted in the New Testament. If quotation in the New Testament is what gives Old Testament canonicity to a book, then there are several books that should be included in the Old Testament that are not included. The Book of Enoch and the Assumption of Moses are both quoted in the New Testament24, yet they are not included in the Old Testament. There are even Pagan poets quoted in the New Testament.25 If quotation in the New Testament establishes canonicity for a book, then Pagan scriptures would have to be included in the Bible. Whether the book is quoted in the New Testament or not is irrelevant. Some Protestants say, The books in question had a distinct name setting them apart from the canon as Deuterocanonical, Apocryphal, or Anaginoskomena. Firstly, I would point out that the term deuterocanonical was coined by, the Catholic theologian, Sixtus of Siena in 1566 (after the Protestant reformation); thus, that distinction did not exist prior to the Reformation. The ante-Nicene fathers all accepted the Apocrypha as having an equal status with the rest of the canon. It was not the early fathers, but rather the latter fathers that came to question the canonicity of the Apocrypha. The only reason they came
22 23

Cf. Abraham Cohen, Everymans Talmud, pp. 143-145 Cf. Abraham Cohen, Everymans Talmud, pp. 145 24 Jude 14-15 comes from 1 Enoch 2:1 and Jude 9 comes from The Assumption 25 Cf. Acts 17:28; 1 Corinthians 15:33; Titus 1:12, etc.

to question the authority of these books was because the Jews had removed them from their canon, as I mentioned before. In short, I hold the opinion of the early, ante-Nicene fathers26 over that of the latter, post-Nicene fathers27. Even the Church fathers that made a distinction did not reject the Apocrypha. After the Jews rejected the Apocrypha, Christians only made the distinction when they were conversing with the Jews. Protestants argue: St. Jerome did not include the Apocrypha in his Latin translation of the Bible, therefore the Apocrypha should be excluded from the canon. Oy vey! Firstly, Ive shown that the Christians of the 1st Century did accept the Apocrypha; so the fact that a single Christian of the 4th Century rejected them, if Jerome did reject them, would be irrelevant. However, the Apocrypha are included in Jeromes translation of the Bible, so the heretics are lying when they make this accusation. Furthermore, Jeromes own writings testify that he did not reject the Apocrypha. Jerome often quoted the Apocrypha as Scripture:
Does not the Scripture say: Burden not thyself above thy power (Sirach 13:2)?(NPNF2-06, The Letters of St. Jerome, Letter 108 to Eustochium, 21)

There are infinitely more passages to cite, where Jerome refers to the Apocrypha as Scripture, but this one alone will suffice to prove my point. Let us also remember the words of Jerome, regarding the Apocrypha, from elsewhere:
But when I repeat what the Jews say against the Story of Susanna and the Hymn of the Three Children, and the fables of Bel and the Dragon, which are not contained in the Hebrew Bible, the man who makes this a charge against me proves himself to be a fool and a slanderer; for I explained not what I thought but what they commonly say against us.(NPNF2-03, Jerome's Apology for Himself Against the Books of Rufinus, 2:33)

Here it is made clear that Jerome did not reject the Apocrypha, but was only explaining how the Jews rejected it. Even Jerome admitted that the Septuagint was the version accepted by the Apostles.28 There is, in fact, no reasonable case for the Protestant canon, and no concept of it in Christianity, prior to Luther in the 1500s. In all actuality, the modern Protestant Bible did not even come into print until the late 18th Century. The fact that the Protestants point to Jerome in defense of their canon shows that they know nothing about Jerome. Protestants often argue that there are textual indescrepencies between the Septuagint and the Pharisaic Masoretic text. But, this is because the Masoretic text is relatively modern, whereas the Septuagint is ancient. The ancient, original Hebrew text was essencially identical to the Septuagint. The textual indescrepencies are merely due to errors caused by the 1,000 year of transcriptions that led to the modern Masoretic text, and some of the other indescrepencies are due to the false pen of the Masoretes scribes. (Cf. Jeremiah 8:8) Most people are unaware of the fact that the Hebrew language fell into disuse among the laity in Judaism during the Intertestamental Period. Hebrew is the language most prominent amoung the Jews of our day, but at the time of Christ, Aramaic and Greek were the common tongues.
But it was impossible for Jews who for generations spent their lives and carried on their business in Greek towns to retain their Semitic speech. In Palestine after the Return, Aramaic gradually took the place of Hebrew in ordinary intercourse, and after the time of
26 27

i.e. that the Apocrypha are of equal authority to the rest of the Scriptures i.e. that the Apocrypha are subordinate to the books that Jews and Christians have in common 28 [The Septuagint] has been used by the apostles.(NPNF2-06, The Letters of St. Jerome, Letter LVII, To Pammachius on the Best Method of Translating, 11)

Alexander Greek became to some extent a rival of Aramaic.(H. B. Swete, An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, P. 15)

During the Assyrian, Seleucid, and Roman occupations of the Holy Land, the Hebrew language fell into practical disuse. Although the language didnt die entirely, it came close enough to extinction that we do not know for certain the meaning of many Hebrew words. Since we do not know the meaning of many Hebrew words used in the Torah, I am strictly against the concept of Hebraic primacy. In all actuallity, it is impossible to create a translation of the Old Testament entirely from the Hebrew. Even when using the Hebrew, translators have to look to other versions (such as the Septuagint and Peshitta) in order to determine the meaning of the Hebrew. According to the Revised Standard Version, there are ten places in the book of Hosea alone where the meaning of the Hebrew used is uncertain. Fortunately, though, while the Hebrew is unclear, we can look to the Peshitta and Septuagint to determine the meaning of the words and phrases that cannot be understood from the Masoretic text alone. So, even the Protestant translations from the Masoretic text rely extensively on the Septuagint and other versions. I firmly believe that the Dead Sea Scrolls Hebrew, the Peshittas Aramaic, and the Septuagints Greek are the most reliable versions of the Old Testament and are to be viewed as holding much more authority than the Masoretic text. However, the Septuagint is to be exalted above all others. Versions of the Jewish Bible in Circulation at the Time of Christ There were three versions of the Old Testament in circulation at the time of Christ: the Septuagint, the Peshitta, and the Semi-Protohebraikois29 Hebrew text.30 These are the manuscripts that Christ and the Apostles would have been familiar with, as the modern Masoretic text didnt come into being until the 7th Century or later. The three oldest manuscripts of Psalm 145:13, in Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic,31 say:
Thy kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and thy dominion endures throughout all generations. The LORD is faithful in all his words, and gracious in all his deeds .

The Masoretic text excludes the end of this verse. The additional Psalms, which are found in the Septuagint and Peshitta, but missing from the Masoretic text, are found in several of the ancient Dead Sea Scrolls Hebrew manuscripts. The Samaritan Pentateuch (650AD), an ancient manuscript of the Torah, has roughly 2,000 places where it disagrees with the Masoretic text and agrees with the Septuagint, and thats only in regards to the first five books of the Bible. The Pharisaic scribe Theodotion wrote a Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible in 150AD. Theodotions version includes the portions of the book of Daniel which are found in the Septuagint, but missing from the Masoretic text. The Masoretic text has many inconsistencies that cannot be explained. When we compare the Masoretic text with the Septuagint, we find the Septuagint to be more reliable. Lets look at some of the inconsistencies in the Masoretic text:
29

Semi-Protohebraikois: almost the original Hebrew; the common Hebrew version in ancient times: It is represented in Hebrew fragments like those of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The actual Protohebraikois (the original Hebrew) had already been lost by the time of Christ. The Septuagint and a less reliable Hebrew version had replaced it. 30 There were copies of certain portions of the Old Testament in circulation in the form of Targums (Aramaic translations) and Greek translations, but the Septuagint, Peshitta, and the Semi-Protohebraikois represent the only Bibles (collections of books on the same scroll or codex) around at the time. 31 i.e. the Dead Sea Scrolls Hebrew, the Peshittas Aramaic, and the Septuagints Greek

In the thirty and first year of Asa king of Judah began Omri to reign over Israel, twelve years.... So Omri slept with his fathers, and was buried in Samaria: and Ahab his son reigned in his stead. And in the thirty and eighth year of Asa king of Judah began Ahab the son of Omri to reign over Israel...(1 Kings 16:23, 28-29)

In the Masoretic text, we are informed that Omri began to reign in the 31st year of Asa and reigned for 12 years. After his death, his son began to reign in the 38th year of Asa. If Omris son really began to reign in the 38th year, just seven years after his fathers reign began, then his father could not have possible reigned for 12 years. Lets look at the same passage in the Septuagint:
In the thirty-first year of king Asa, Ambri begins to reign over Israel twelve years.... And Ambri slept with his fathers, and is buried in Samaria; and Achaab his son reigns in his stead. And in the eleventh year of Ambri Josaphat the son of Asa reigns, being thirty-five years old in the beginning of his reign, and he reigned twenty-five years in Jerusalem: and his mothers name was Gazuba, daughter of Seli. And he walked in the way of Asa his father, and turned not from it, even from doing right in the eyes of the Lord: only they removed not any of the high places; they sacrificed and burnt incense on the high places. Now the engagements, which Josaphat made with the king of Israel, and all his mighty deeds, which he performed, and the enemies whom he fought against, behold, are not these written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Juda? and the remains of the prostitution which they practiced in the days of Asa his father, he removed out of the land: and there was no king in Syria, but a deputy. And king Josaphat made a ship at Tharsis to go to Sophir for gold: but it went not, for the ship was broken at Gasion Gaber. Then the king of Israel said to Josaphat, I will send forth thy servants and my servants in the ship: but Josaphat would not. And Josaphat slept with his fathers, and is buried with his fathers in the city of David: and Joram his son reigned in his stead. In the second year of Josaphat king of Juda, Achaab son of Ambri reigned over Israel in Samaria twenty-two years.(1 Kings 16:23, 28-29)

In the Septuagint, not only do we not find any inconsistency, we also find the reason that there is an inconsistency in the Masoretic text. Apparently, at some point, one of the Masoretes scribes lost their place and left out several verses; this is the reason that the error is found in the Masoretic text. Lets look at another inconsistency in the Masoretic text:
Thirty and two years old was he when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem eight years, and departed without being desired. Howbeit they buried him in the city of David, but not in the sepulchres of the kings.... So Ahaziah the son of Jehoram king of Judah reigned. Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem.(2 Chronicles 21:20-22:1-2)

Here, the Masoretic text tells us that Ahaziah was two years older than his father. Well, that just doesnt make sense! Lets look at the same verse in the Septuagint:
He was thirty and two years old when he began to reign, and he reigned eight years in Jerusalem. And he departed without honour, and was buried in the city of David, but not in the tombs of the kings. And the inhabitants of Jerusalem made Ochozias his youngest son king in his stead.... Ochozias began to reign when he was twenty years old, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem.(2 Chronicles 21:20-22:1-2)

In the Septuagint version, there is no inconsistency. This, in itself, shows the superiority of the Septuagint over the Masoretic text. There is yet another error in the Masoretic text:
Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign.(2 Kings 24:8) Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign.(2 Chronicles 36:9)

Here the Masoretic text contradicts itself, but the Septuagint does not:
Eighteen years old was Joachim when he began to reign.(2 Kings 24:8)

Jechonias was eight years old when he began to reign (2 Chronicles 36:9)

The Septuagint has no contradiction here. It was Jechonias, not Joachim, who began to reign at 8 years old. In the Septuagint we are told that Joachim had died, and Jechonias began to reign in his stead at the age of eight. Again, in the Masoretic text, part of the verse was left out by mistake, which caused the confusion. The following chart shows some of the places where the Dead Sea Scrolls Hebrew (the oldest Hebrew manuscripts of the Bible) and the Septuagint agree against the reading of the 10th Century Masoretic Text.
Verses Genesis 1:9 4QGenk Dead Sea Scrolls/Septuagint Masoretic Text And God said, Let the water And God said, Let the waters which is under the heaven under the heaven be gathered be collected into one place, together unto one place, and and let the dry land appear, let the dry land appear: and it and it was so. And the water was so. which was under the heaven was collected into its places, and the dry land appeared. But Joseph was in Egypt. And all the souls born of Jacob were seventy-five. And all the souls that came out of the loins of Jacob were seventy souls: for Joseph was in Egypt already.

Exodus 1:5 4QExodb

Exodus 2:5 4QExodb

And having opened it, she And when she had opened it, sees the babe weeping in the she saw the child: and, ark: and the daughter of behold, the babe wept. And Pharao had compassion on she had compassion on him, it, and said, This is one of and said, This is one of the the Hebrews children. Hebrews' children. And if any one should feed down a field or a vineyard, and should send in his beast to feed down another field, he shall make compensation of his own field according to his produce; and if he shall have fed down the whole field, he shall pay for compensation the best of his own field and the best of his vineyard. If a man shall cause a field or vineyard to be eaten, and shall put in his beast, and shall feed in another man's field; of the best of his own field, and of the best of his own vineyard, shall he make restitution.

Exodus 22:5 4QpaleoExodm

Exodus 40:17 4QExod-Levf

And it came to pass in the first month, in the second year after their going forth out of Egypt, at the new moon, that the tabernacle was set up.

And it came to pass in the first month in the second year, on the first day of the month, that the tabernacle was reared up.

Leviticus 15:3 11QpaleoLeva

And this is the law of his And this shall be his uncleanness; whoever has a uncleanness in his issue: gonorrhoea out of his body, whether his flesh run with his this is his uncleanness in issue, or his flesh be stopped him by reason of the issue, from his issue, it is his by which, his body is uncleanness. affected through the issue: all the days of the issue of his body, by which his body is affected through the issue, there is his uncleanness.

Leviticus 17:4 4QLevd

And shall not bring it to the door of the tabernacle of witness, so as to sacrifice it for a whole-burnt-offering or peace-offering to the Lord to be acceptable for a sweet-smelling savour: and whosoever shall slay it without, and shall not bring it to the door of the tabernacle of witness, so as to offer it as a gift to the Lord before the tabernacle of the Lord; blood shall be imputed to that man, he has shed blood; that soul shall be cut off from his people.

And bringeth it not unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, to offer an offering unto the LORD before the tabernacle of the LORD; blood shall be imputed unto that man; he hath shed blood; and that man shall be cut off from among his people:

Numbers 22:13 4QNumb

And Balaam rose up in the morning, and said to the princes of Balac, Depart quickly to your lord; God does not permit me to go with you.

And Balaam rose up in the morning, and said unto the princes of Balak, Get you into your land: for the LORD refuseth to give me leave to go with you.

Numbers 25:16 4QNumb

And the Lord spoke to And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Speak to the Moses, saying, children of Israel, saying,

Numbers 32:30 4QNumb

But if they will not pass over armed with you to war before the Lord, then shall ye cause to pass over their possessions and their wives and their cattle before you into the land of Chanaan, and they shall inherit with you in the land of Chanaan.

But if they will not pass over with you armed, they shall have possessions among you in the land of Canaan.

Numbers 35:21 4QNumb

Or if he have smitten him Or in enmity smite him with with his hand through anger, his hand, that he die: he that and the man should die, let smote him shall surely be put the man that smote him be to death; for he is a murderer: put to death by all means, he the revenger of blood shall is a murderer: let the slay the murderer, when he murderer by all means be meeteth him. put to death: the avenger of blood shall slay the murderer when he meets him. Thou shalt not make to Thou shalt not make thee any thyself an image, nor graven image, or any likeness likeness of any thing, of any thing that is in heaven whatever things are in the above, or that is in the earth heaven above, and whatever beneath, or that is in the are in the earth beneath, and waters beneath the earth: whatever are in the waters under the earth. And it shall come to pass if And it shall be, if thou do at thou do at all forget the all forget the LORD thy God, Lord thy God, and shouldest and walk after other gods, and go after other gods, and serve them, and worship serve them, and worship them, I testify against you this them, I call heaven and day that ye shall surely earth to witness against you perish. this day, that ye shall surely perish. The word is very near thee, in thy mouth, and in thine heart, and in thine hands to do it. But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.

Deuteronomy 5:8 4QDeutn

Deuteronomy 8:19 5QDeutcorr

Deuteronomy 30:14 4QDeutb

Deuteronomy 32:8 4QDeutj

When the Most High When the Most High divided divided the nations, when he to the nations their separated the sons of Adam, inheritance, when he he set the bounds of the separated the sons of Adam, nations according to the he set the bounds of the number of the angels of people according to the God. number of the children of Israel.

Deuteronomy Here the LXX and DSS are The Masoretic Text has no 32:43 4QDeutq not in perfect agreement, but parallel. have similar readings. LXX:"and let all the angels of God worship him" DSS:" and bow down to him all you gods." 1 Samuel 2:9 4QSama granting his petition to him that prays; and he blesses the years of the righteous, for by strength cannot man prevail. He will keep the feet of his saints, and the wicked shall be silent in darkness; for by strength shall no man prevail.

1 Samuel 2:22 4QSama

And Heli was very old, Now Eli was very old, and and he heard what his sons heard all that his sons did did to the children of Israel. unto all Israel; and how they lay with the women that assembled at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. ...in thy house shall fall by ...thine house shall die in the the sword of men. flower of their age. And David took the golden And David took the shields of bracelets which were on the gold that were on the servants servants of Adraazar king of of Hadadezer, and brought Suba, and brought them to them to Jerusalem. Jerusalem. And Susakim king of Egypt took them, when he went up to Jerusalem in the days of Roboam son of Solomon. For many dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked doers has beset me round: they pierced my hands and my feet. For dogs have encompassed me; a company of evil-doers have inclosed me; like a lion, they are at my hands and my feet.

1 Samuel 2:33 4QSama 2 Samuel 8:7 4QSama

Psalms 22:16 5/6HevPs

Psalms 145:13 11QPsa

Thy kingdom is an Thy kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and everlasting kingdom, and thy thy dominion endures dominion endureth through all generations. The throughout all generations. Lord is faithful in his words, and holy in all his works.

Jeremiah 10:6- These five verses are missing Forasmuch as there is none 10 4QJerb from the DSS and LXX like unto thee. and the manuscripts. nations shall not be able to abide his indignation. Psalm 151 11QPsa I was small among my The Masoretic Text has no brethren, and youngest in parallel. my fathers house: I tended my fathers sheep. My hands formed a musical instrument, and my fingers tuned a psaltery. And who shall tell my Lord? the Lord himself, he himself hears. He sent forth his angel, and took me from my fathers sheep, and he anointed me with the oil of his anointing. My brothers were handsome and tall; but the Lord did not take pleasure in them. I went forth to meet the Philistine; and he cursed me by his idols. But I drew his own sword, and beheaded him, and removed reproach from the children of Israel.

Verses

New Testament/Septuagint

Masoretic Text

Matthew 1:23 Isaiah 7:14

Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel.

Behold, a young woman32 shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Matthew 4:10 Luke 4:8 Deuteronomy 6:13 Matthew 12:21 Isaiah 42:4 Matthew 13:15 Isaiah 6:10

Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve

Thou shalt fear the LORD thy God, and serve him, and shalt swear by his name.

And in his name will the Gentiles And the isles shall wait for his trust. law. For this people's heart has grown Make the heart of this people fat, dull, and their ears are heavy of and their ears heavy, and shut hearing, and their eyes they have their eyes. closed. But in vain they do worship me, And their fear of me is a teaching for doctrines the commandment of men learned by commandments of men. rote. Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings thou hast brought perfect praise. Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings thou hast ordained strength. And the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together. The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me; because the Lord hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the Prison to them that are bound; to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord...

Matthew 15:9 Isaiah 29:13 Matthew 21:16 Psalm 8:2

Luke 3:6 Isaiah And all flesh shall see the 40:5 salvation of God. Luke 4:18-19 Isaiah 61:1-2 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, to preach the acceptable year of the Lord.

32

In actuality, I dont think that this place is in contradiction to the Septuagint. However, since the Rabbis say that it should be rendered this way, I have included it on the list. My personal opinion is that the word almah does mean virgin in this context. There is no Hebrew word that specifically means virgin. The word almah in Isaiah almost has to imply virgin because Isaiah says, the Lord will give you a sign, implying that there is something miraculous about it. If it is just a young woman who has reached the age of sexual maturity that is giving birth, then what is so miraculous about that? But if it is a virgin, then we have a reason to be amazed! It is only a sign or a miracle, as Isaiah said, if the woman is a virgin, otherwise there was no reason to say that it would be a miraculous event. Nevertheless, Im not a Hebrew Scholar, so I will go with them on this point, even though I am certain of their deceptiveness.

Acts 7:43 Amos Yea, ye took up the tabernacle of You shall take up Sakkuth your 5:26-27 Moloch, and the star of your god king, and Kaiwan your star-god, Remphan, figures which ye made your images, which you made for to worship them: and I will carry yourselves; therefore I will take you away beyond Babylon. you into exile beyond Damascus.

Acts 13:41 Habakkuk 1:5

Behold, ye despisers, and Behold, ye among the nations, wonder, and perish: for I work a and regard, and wonder work in your days, a work which marvelously: for I will work a ye shall in no wise believe, work in your days, which ye will though a man declare it unto you. not believe, though it be told you.

Acts 15:17 Amos 9:12

That the rest of men might seek That they may possess the after the Lord, and all the remnant of Edom, and of all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is nations, which are called by my called, saith the Lord, who doeth name, saith the Lord that doeth all these things. this.

Romans 10:20 Isaiah 65:1

I was found of them that sought me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me. And let all the angels of God worship him. Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; though crownedst him with glory and honour.

...I was ready to be found by those who did not seek me. I said, "Here am I, here am I," to a nation that did not call on my name. This line is not included in the Masoretic text at all. Yet thou hast made him little less than God, and dost crown him with glory and honor.

Hebrews 1:6 Deut. 32:43 Hebrews 2:7 Psalm 8:4-6

Hebrews 8:9 Not according to the covenant Jeremiah 31:32 that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord.

Hebrews 10:38 Habakkuk 2:4

Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him.

Behold, his soul that is lifted up is not upright in him: but the just shall live by faith.

Hebrews 11:5 Genesis 5:24

And Enoch was well-pleasing And Enoch walked with God: to God, and was not found, and he was not; for God took because God translated him. him.

Hebrews 11:21 Genesis 47:31

And he said, Swear to me; and And he said, Swear unto me. And he swore to him. And Israel did he sware unto him. And Israel reverence, leaning on the top of bowed himself upon the bed's his staff. head.

1 Peter 4:18 Proverbs 11:31

If the righteous scarcely be Behold, the righteous shall be saved, where shall the ungodly recompensed in the earth: much and the sinner appear? more the wicked and the sinner.

Which Translation? As far as the Old Testament goes, Sir Lancelot C. L. Brentons translation is the best, as it is a translation directly from the Septuagint. The Peshitta-based Lamsa Bible is probably the second best. The next best English translation would be The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible; it, however, is not perfect, as it doesnt hold to any historical canon, and the Dead Sea Scrolls are fragmentary, so a perfect translation from them would be impossible. Anyways, these versions are the best English translations of the Old Testament. The King James Version, Revised Standard Version, New International Version, and all other subsequent translations are unreliable sources for the Old Testament, as they are based on the Masoretic Text. Chapter 3: The Manuscript Evidence for the Textual Authenticity of Scripture Let us compare the manuscript evident of the Christian Scripture (the Septuagint and the Greek New Testament) to that of other ancient literature. Concerning the Septuagint, the oldest complete manuscript is from the 3rd Century AD, about 500 years after the original composition. And there are fragments of the Septuagint from Qumran that are from less than 100 years after the original composition. Compare that to the Masoretic Hebrew version: the oldest manuscript of the Masoretic text is from the 10th Century AD, about 2,000 years after the composition of the original Torah took place, and 33% of the oldest manuscript of the Masoretic text is now missing entirely. Add to that the witness of Aristobulus, Aristeas, Philo, Josephus, the Talmud, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Peshitta, the Samaritan Pentateuch, and the New Testament to the reliability of the Septuagint as an honest translation. Then, there is also the fact that there is virtually no evidence for the reliability of the Masoretic text. Then consider the internal evidence (which I have already presented) that shows the Masoretic text to be unreliable. The oldest complete manuscript of the New Testament is from the 3rd Century AD, a mere 100 to 200 years after the original composition. Plus, there are many even older

manuscripts of the separate books of which the New Testament is comprised. There is more manuscriptual evidence for the authenticity of the New Testament than for any other work of ancient literature. Lets examine the facts about other ancient manuscripts. The oldest manuscript of The Gallic Wars by Julius Caesar is from about 1,000 after the original composition. The oldest manuscript of the History of Thucydides is from around 1,300 years after the original composition. The oldest manuscript of the History of Herodotus is from approximately 1,400 years after the original composition. The oldest manuscript of Platos Republic is from over 1,000 years after the original composition. So, compared to other ancient manuscripts, the oldest copy of the New Testament is very close to the time of the original composition. According to Bruce Metzger, of the over 5,000 ancient Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, there is 99.5% accuracy in the New Testament. That is to say, there are only 40 out of 20,000 lines that are questionable. This is a higher rate of accuracy from manuscript to manuscript than any other ancient work. In addition to having 5,000 ancient Greek manuscripts, by 500AD the New Testament had already been translated into about 500 different languages, and there are innumerable ancient manuscripts of these different translations. This means, that looking at the facts of the matter, from the point of view of a textual critic, the Greek Bible is the most reliable of any ancient literary work. Even some of the most devout atheists have come to realize the reliability of the Bible, as far as the textual authenticity is concerned.33 The text of the Christian Bible has been preserved, with relatively little, if any, corruption in comparison to other ancient works. Chapter 4: What Degree of Authority Do the Scriptures Have? Whoever thinks a faultless piece to see, Thinks what neer, nor is, nor eer shall be. In every work regard the writers end, Since none can compass more than they intend; And if the means be just, the conduct true, Applause, in spite of trivial faults, is due. (Alexander Pope, An Essay on Criticism) The Bible itself claims neither to be inerrant, nor infallible, at least not in the sense in which modern Christians like to preach. To claim that the Bible is perfect and inerrant, in the sense in which most Christians claim, is utter blasphemy. Perfection is not found in anything by nature, except in God only.(St. Severus of Antioch, Epistle 8, to Maron) The Bible is inspired by God, and authoritative in matters of faith and morals, but not entirely inerrant as some people claim.
This inspiration naturally does not refer to the letters or individual words of the Bible but only to the meaning and the entire content.(Sub-deacon Amir Hanna, Coptic Orthodox Doctrinal Theology, P. 167)

A heretic once raised a question, asking, How can something be authoritative, if it is fallible? Well, that is simple. What about the constitution of a nation and the laws of that
33

One of the most militant atheists among the Oxford faculty, T. D. Weldon, sat in Lewiss room one evening and remarked that the historical authenticity of the Gospels was surprisingly sound. This deeply disturbed Lewis. He immediately understood the implications.(Dr. Armand M. Nicholi, Jr., The Question of God: C.S. Lewis and Sigmund Freud Debate God, Love, Sex, and the Meaning of Life, P. 83-84)

nation? Are they infallible? No, they are fallible. The entire judicial system is fallible,34 however, the judicial system, the constitution, and the secular laws are still authoritative and fully binding on all individuals within the nation. And, the Scriptures also agree that the law of the land is authoritative!35 Do you then claim that the government, and the leaders thereof, are infallible because they have authority? No, not by any stretch of the imagination! Thus, a thing can be authoritative, without being infallible. If the Bible is infallible down to every last word, then which Bible is infallible and inerrant? Every ancient manuscript of the Bible is different from every other ancient manuscript: so which manuscript is the infallible one? Is it the 10th Century Masoretic text (which doesnt even correspond to the quotations of the Old Testament found in the New Testament) that is the infallible version? Is it the King James Version? And, if the King James Version is the infallible version, then which version of the King James Version is the infallible one? The original King James Version, which included the Apocrypha? Or, is it just a pick and choose thing, where the modern western theologian is allowed to pick and choose books and verses from different versions to create his own Bible? To see just what kind of authority the Scripture has, lets look at the opinions of the early Church fathers. Justin Martyr wrote:
I am entirely convinced that no Scripture contradicts another.(ANF01, Justin Martyr, Dialogue With Trypho, 65)

The early Christians believed that the Bible was infallible, but only in relation to the core messages of Scripture, which are reiterated again and again, not in relation to the individual words and letters. The early Church father Tertullian writes:
Never mind if there does occur some variation in the order of their narratives, provided that there be agreement in the essential matter of the faith...(ANF03, Anti-Marcion, The Five Books Against Marcion, 4:2)

John Chrysostom was so bold that he actually used the argument that the Bible is full of incongruities in order to argue that the Bible is a reliable first-hand account:
But the contrary, it may be said, hath come to pass, for in many places they are convicted of discordance. Nay, this very thing is a very great evidence of their truth. For if they had agreed in all things exactly even to time, and place, and to the very words, none of our enemies would have believed but that they had met together, and had written what they wrote by some human compact; because such entire agreement as this cometh not of simplicity. But now even that discordance which seems to exist in little matters delivers them from all suspicion, and speaks clearly in behalf of the character of the writers.(NPNF1-10, The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom, Homily 1, 6)

The early Church fathers did believe in the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible, but not in the sense that these terms are used today. They only considered the message of the Bible to be inerrant, not the text itself.

34 35

Otherwise, you would never have a case where an innocent man goes to prison, etc. Cf. Matthew 22:21; Mark 12:17; Luke 20:25; Romans 13:1-7; 1 Timothy 2:1-2; 1 Peter 2:13-14; etc.

There are many variations in the Bible.36 Of course, these variations do not diminish the authority of Scripture or change the essential message of the Bible. They do, however, disprove the modern fundamentalist formulation of the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. The early Christians believed that Jesus was the Word of God.37 Jesus alone was regarded as the Perfect Word of God. However, they believed that the Bible was the word of God in a lesser sense. The Bible was viewed as the word of God in the sense that it contained the words of God, but not every word of the Bible is to be regarded as the word of God. The Orthodox position is this: If you exalt the Bible as the inerrant and infallible Word of God, you are putting the Bible in the place where Christ should be, and you are turning the book into an idol. The Bible is not the Perfect Word of God, but only a lesser word of God, modeled after the true Form of the Word, Jesus Christ. The Form of the Word is Jesus Christ; the Bible is a distorted reflection or a lesser representation of the original Word. The Bible, then, is not regarded as being perfect, but only as being based on something that is perfect. Perfection is not found in anything by nature, except in God only.(St. Severus of Antioch, Epistle 8, to Maron) If God alone is perfect, then the Bible cannot be perfect unless it is God. And, since the Bible is not God, the Bible cannot be perfect. God alone is perfect. If God wanted to create a perfect thing, the only way He could do it would be to beget an exact replica of Himself. God did beget perfection when He begot Christ, which is an exact replica of God the Father, and that replica (Christ) is, in fact, God. The Scripture must be fallible because the only way it could be infallible would be if the Scripture itself were God, and it clearly is not. The Bible is not the word of God, but where the Bible attributes words to God, those words are the words of God. Gods word is contained in the Bible. Jesus was God incarnate. He, as God, preached on earth, and his sayings were recorded in the Gospels. So, the words of Christ in the Gospel can be considered the word of God in that sense. Certain prophecies too are in actuality the word of God, but not every word and letter is to be considered the word of God. The word of God is contained in the Scriptures (as well as in Tradition), but the entirety of Scripture is not the word of God. In the Bible, the authors often distinguish between their words and the words of God. For example, take St. Paul, he says: ...I command, yet not I, but the Lord...(1 Corinthians 7:10), clearly stating that the following portion of Scripture (verses 10-11) was dictated to him by God, and thus is the word of God. And when he finishes writing what was dictated to him by God, he writes,
36

Mark says that the cock crew twice before Peter denied Jesus thrice. (Mark 14:72) The other Gospels say that Peter denied Christ thrice and then the cock crew for the first time. (Matthew 26:74-75; Luke 22:60-61; John 13:38; 18:17, 25-27) According to one narrative, Jesus told the Apostles to travel with staves (Mark 6:8-9), but according to another account of the same event, Jesus told the Apostles not to travel with staves. (Matthew 10:9-10) One account of the ascension records Jesus ascending from Bethany (Luke 24:50-51), while another records the ascension as taking place on Mount Olivet. (Acts 1:9-12) One account of Pauls conversion says that those that were with him heard the voice too (Acts 9:7), while another account says that those who were with him did not hear the voice. (Acts 22:9) 37 ...The Word of God (i.e. Jesus) was born of God in a peculiar manner, different from ordinary generation.(ANF01, Justin Martyr, The First Apology, 22) ...by the Word of God the whole world was made...(Cf. John 1:1; ANF01, Justin Martyr, The First Apology, 59) Now the Word of God is His Son, as we have before said.(ANF01, Justin Martyr, The First Apology, 63) ...the Father of the universe has a Son; who also, being the first-begotten Word of God, is even God.(ANF01, Justin Martyr, The First Apology, 64) Cf. John 1:1-14

...but the rest say I, not the Lord...(1 Corinthians 7:12) When Paul says, ...not the Lord, he is outright denying that the following portion of Scripture is the word of God! Here Paul clearly makes a distinction. The first part is the word of God; the second part is the word of man. So, from this we can see that the entirety of Scripture is not inspired, but only certain portions are. Distinctions such as these are made over and over in the Scriptures. We must realize that there is both the word of God and the word of man contained in the Scriptures. This is why Paul told us that we must divide the word of truth. (Cf. 2 Timothy 2:15) We must distinguish between the word of God and the word of man, both of which are contained in Scripture. This same principle applies to Tradition as well. Protestants argue, The Bible is inspired by God (Cf. 2 Timothy 3:16) and God is infallible; therefore, the Scripture must also be infallible. There is a flaw in this argument though. Consider this, God created man in His very image. (Cf. Genesis 1:27) So the inspiration for man was God (who is infallible), yet man is fallible. And what of the devil? The hands of God created him too. Men were made directly by the hands of God, not just inspired, but made by his very hands! So, if something made directly by Gods hands is fallible, then something only inspired by God, and written by men, surely has no hope of infallibility.38 God directly played a part in the creation of an imperfect world, so why is it so hard to accept that he inspired an imperfect book? Another Protestant argument is based on 2 Peter: Know this first, that no prophecy of scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.(2 Peter 1:20-21) From this, the Protestant concludes that the Scriptures are infallible. However, upon observing this verse, it is clear that Peter is only referring to the prophecies and not the entirety of Scripture. The prophecies (foretelling of future events and declaring the messages of God to man) in Scripture were dictated by God and therefore are infallible. The prophecies found in the Bible are bound to come true. It does not follow from this that every word of Scripture is inspired by God, nor does it follow that every passage in Scripture is infallible. At best, the verse means that the foretelling of future events in Scripture is guaranteed to come truethe prophecies are sure to be fulfilled. Another Protestant argument is from John 10:35. It is pointed out that Jesus says ...and the Scripture cannot be broken... However, I would like you to look at the context. In context it is a parenthetical statement used for the sake of argument. For example, say an anti-Mormon apologist argues: If there is no evidence that the Native Americans were Israelitesand the Book of Mormon is truethen would you conclude that the archeologists are concealing the truth? Now, when the anti-Mormon says, ...and the Book of Mormon is true, we know that it is a parenthetical, argumentative statement because an anti-Mormon would never really believe that the Book of Mormon was true. This sort of argument (reminding the opponent of what they believe, in order to point out their self-contradictions) is part of the Socratic method of debate. In the same way that the statement about the Book of Mormon being true is only used for the sake of
38

Someone once replied to this argument by saying that man was created with free will, and that it was mans choice to sin that caused him to become fallible. It should be noted that man was not infallible when he was first created. Mans fall is not the falling away from infallibility. Infallibility, by definition, cannot be fallen away from. And if mans free will corrupted himself, then it could also corrupt the Scriptures. The fact is that God alone is perfect and infallible. According to the Bible, mans fall corrupted the entire world. The Scripture is just a part of a corrupt world. And therefore it is itself corrupt.

argument, the statement the Scripture cannot be broken is also just used for the sake of argument. Therefore it is not to be taken literally and used as the basis for some doctrine of inerrancy. Protestants will also point to Psalms 19:7, where it says, The Torah of the LORD is perfect... But, let it suffice to say that there are two Torahs: one above that is infallible the Logos Torahand one below that is corruptiblethe Nomos Torah. Psalms [19:7] refers to the Heavenly Torah. When the reflection of the Torah was brought down from heaven, it was necessary for it to be made imperfect so that it would be possible for us, with our imperfect minds, to comprehend it. Had the Pure Torah come to us in its Perfect Form, it would have been useless because we would not be able to comprehend it. And even when the Torah came in its true Form, He had to be made a little lower than the angels(Hebrews 2:9) in order for us to be able to behold Him...and we will never be able to comprehend Him. The Scripture, which is imperfect, is perfect for the function and purpose it was meant to fulfill. An electrical fuse is purposely made imperfect. It is designed to fail under certain conditions. And in failing (being imperfect) at the right time, it is perfect for the function it was designed to fulfill. The Scripture is the same way. It is imperfect, but its imperfection is sufficient to perfectly perform the purpose it was designed to fulfill. Thus, it is perfectly imperfect. If the Scriptures were perfect, they would be too complex for our imperfect minds to comprehend. Thus, a perfect Bible would be useless.

The Authoritative Canonical List

Genesis Exodus Leviticus Numbers Deuteronomy Joshua Judges 1 Samuel 2 Samuel 1 Kings 2 Kings Isaiah Jeremiah Ezekiel Hosea Joel Amos Obadiah Jonah Micah Nahum Habakkuk Zephaniah Haggai Zechariah Malachi Matthew Psalms Mark Proverbs Luke Job John Song of Solomon Acts Ruth Romans Lamentations 1 Corinthians Ecclesiastes 2 Corinthians Esther Galatians Daniel Ephesians Ezra Philippians Nehemiah Colossians 1 Chronicles 1 Thessalonians 2 Chronicles 2 Thessalonians 1 Esdras 1 Timothy Tobit 2 Timothy Judith Titus Wisdom of Solomon Philemon Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) Hebrews Baruch James 1 Maccabees 1 Peter 2 Maccabees 2 Peter 3 Maccabees 1 John 4 Maccabees 2 John 3 John Jude Revelation

Sources: The Septuagint with Apocrypha, Sir Lancelot C.L. Brenton The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English, Geza Vermes The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origin of the Bible, Eugene Ulrich The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible, Martin G. Abegg, Peter Flint, and Eugene Ulrich Everymans Talmud, Abraham Cohen Lost Scriptures: Books that Did Not Make It into the New Testament, Bart D. Ehrman An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, H. B. Swete The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English, R. H. Charles The Question of God, Doctor Armand M. Nicholi, Junior Invitation to the Apocrypha, Daniel J. Harrington The Jerome Biblical Commentary, Raymond E. Brown Introducing the Apocrypha, David A. DeSilva A General Introduction to the Bible, Norman Geisler and William Nix The Ante-Nicene/Post-Nicene Fathers (http://www.ccel.org/fathers.html) The Bible: King James Version, Revised Standard Version, Complete Jewish Bible, Greek manuscripts, etc. http://www.studylight.org/lex/ http://bibledatabase.net/html/stephanos_1550/index.html http://www.standardversion.org/index.php http://www.ccel.org/ http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/ http://www.afii.org/hpgbypg/gknttr.htm http://www.kalvesmaki.com/LXX/Texts.htm http://www.standardversion.org/ http://virtualreligion.net/ http://www.bible-researcher.com/index.html http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0.htm http://www.biblebelievers.net/BibleVersions/kjcforv4.htm#XX http://jacksonsnyder.com/nt/ http://www.sacredbible.org/studybible/index.htm http://www.deanburgonsociety.org/