De Orthodox Christian Information Center

Related Articles

specially for #n/uirers0 ,oly Tradition Which (ame 1irst0 The (hurch or the +ew Testament

Second Thoughts0 'oel 2alvesmaki3s 'ourney to $rthodo!y

All Scripture Is Inspired by God

Thoughts on the Old Testament Canon
by Joel Kalvesmaki

All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. ( !im "#$%& What Scriptures did St. Paul have in mind when he wrote the above to St. Timothy? Was he referring to the 66 books making up the Bible vangelicals read today? What e!actly did Paul mean by "all?" # was personally confident of the Protestant canon of the $ld Testament% until # e!amined the evidence behind it. What # discovered # found uncomfortable. &nd yet it brought me into a deeper and richer relationship with 'esus (hrist. #f you are a (hristian who finds theological correction difficult% then these essays will only annoy you. But if your heart aches to know and indwell the (hristian faith% then this might be the start of something new and e!citing in your relationship with )od. #n this first of two essays we will look closer at the canon of Scriptures which the &postles read and used and contrast that with popular assumptions many vangelicals make today. #n the second essay% "*o +ot &dd to ,is Words%" we will concentrate on the canon of the +ew Testament and consider the authority in (hristianity. --#n his letter to St. Timothy% St. Paul is not referring to the +ew Testament. This should be obvious since% after all% books such as &cts and .evelation had not yet been written. ven what had been written was still beginning the process of

circulation in various churches% starting with those in the basin of the &egean Sea. ,owever% as vangelicals% we generally want this passage to include the +ew Testament since it is one of the few verses that seem to directly support our teaching on the inspiration of the Bible. .egardless% St. Paul undoubtedly had the $ld Testament in mind as he wrote this passage. #t was the $ld Testament which was read in the synagogue and was instrumental in the "training in righteousness" of Sts. Paul% Timothy and many other (hristians from the (hurch of the first century. But% more importantly% Sts. Paul and Timothy used the Septuagint 45667% the )reek translation of the $ld Testament composed in the third century before (hrist. The Origin o the Septuagint "The what...?" &s vangelicals many of us have never heard of the 566 e!cept in a passing reference from educated preachers or teachers. &nd those of us who have heard of the 566 rarely give it a second thought. But so important is the 566 for our faith that many aspects of the message of the +ew Testament cannot be sufficiently grasped without it. The 566 was recogni8ed as the authoritative )reek translation of the 'ewish Scriptures and was read in the synagogues and churches of the ,ellenistic world. 9ost $ld Testament /uotations in the +ew Testament are based on the 566% not the ,ebrew. $f particular interest is Paul3s use of the 566 since% as a student of )amaliel% he would have had ample knowledge of the difference between the )reek and ,ebrew te!ts. 9ost scholars are skeptical of the fabulous details which developed around the story of the translation of the 566% but the main historical facts have been accepted. This /uotation% from an anonymous (hristian of the second or third century% not only relates the story% but reflects the popular opinion of early (hristians on the sub:ect.
But if any one says that the writings of 9oses and of the rest of the prophets were also written in the )reek character% let him read profane histories% and know that Ptolemy% king of gypt% when he had built the library in &le!andria% and by gathering books from every /uarter had filled it% then learnt that very ancient histories written in ,ebrew happened to be carefully preserved; and wishing to know their contents% he sent for seventy wise men from 'erusalem% who were ac/uainted with both the )reek and ,ebrew language% and appointed them to translate the books; and that in freedom from all disturbance they might the more speedily complete the translation% he ordered that there should be constructed% not in the city itself% but seven stadia off 4where the Pharos

was built7% as many little cots as there were translators% so that each by himself might complete his own translation; and en:oined upon those officers who were appointed to this duty% to afford them all attendance% but to prevent communication with one another% in order that the accuracy of the translation might be discernible even by their agreement. &nd when he ascertained that the seventy men had not only given the same meaning% but had employed the same words% and had failed in agreement with one another not even to the e!tent of one word% but had written the same things% and concerning the same things% he was struck with ama8ement% and believed that the translation had been written by divine power% and perceived that the men were worthy of all honor% as beloved of )od; and with many gifts ordered them to return to their own country. &nd having% as was natural% marvelled at the books% and concluded them to be divine% he consecrated them in that library. These things% ye men of )reece% are no fable% nor do we narrate fictions; but we ourselves having been in &le!andria% saw the remains of the little cots at the Pharos still preserved% and having heard these things from the inhabitants% who had received them as part of their country3s tradition% we now tell to you what you can also learn from others% and specially from those wise and esteemed men who have written of these things% Philo and 'osephus% and many others. 4Pseudo< 'ustin% ,or. )reeks =>7

Is the Septuagint basically the same as our Old Testament! #n our popular literature apologists claim that the 566 is very close to the ,ebrew te!t we have today. This claim aims at validating modern Western translations of the Bible% which are based on the ,ebrew te!t. #s this true? &nd how close is close? #t is difficult for one to really grasp the uni/ueness of the 566 until studying the te!t and comparing it with modern translations. When # first started to read the 566% many things surprised me. Working through the Pentateuch% # made note of the many significant differences between the ,ebrew and the )reek. )od3s curse on (ain is a case in point. 566 ,ast thou not sinned if thou hast brought it rightly% but not rightly divided it? Be still% to thee shall be his submission% and thou shalt rule over him. ,ebrew 4&?7 #f sthou doest well% shalt thou not be accepted? &nd if thou doest not well% sin lieth at the door. &nd unto thee shall be his desire% and thou shalt rule over him.

5ikewise% the genealogy from &dam to +oah in the 566 places the *eluge @@A@ years after (reation. But our modern translations based on the ,ebrew te!t

indicate the time span to be =6B6 years. This difference springs from the 566 stating that the birth of the first<born sons of various patriarchs happened later in their life than that reported by the ,ebrew te!t. The last ten chapters of !odus and the entire book of 'eremiah contain a number of different passages where verses are either omitted% paraphrased% or completely rearranged. Sometimes the ,ebrew has more te!t than the 566 and sometimes vice versa. #n # 2ings =@<=A% the events surrounding the life of 2ing 'eroboam are arranged in a different order and include a story not reported in the ,ebrew te!t of how he came to marry &no% the eldest sister of the wife of Susakim% the current pharaoh. These are four of the many differences between the 566 and the ,ebrew. ,aving been led to believe the te!t was basically the same # was /uite disappointed. 1or instance% 'vidence that (emands a )erdict% by 'osh 9c*owell calls the 566 "very close" to the 9assoretic. ,ow close is close? ,ad 9r. 9c*owell really read the 566? The Role o the Septuagint in the "e# Testament The role of the 566 in the +ew Testament and the early (hurch is a crucial help in understanding what Paul might have meant by "all Scripture." &s previously mentioned% this is the version most often /uoted in the +ew Testament. &nd in some cases the claims of the +ew Testament theologically depend on the peculiarities of the 566. 1or instance% ,ebrews =C0B /uotes Psalm AC06 as a messianic prophecy0
Therefore% when ,e comes into the world% ,e says% "sacrifice and offering Thou hast not desired% but a body Thou hast prepared for 9e."

The author has directly /uoted from the 566 Psalter. & /uick turn to our modern Bibles will confirm that the ,ebrew te!t reads0
Sacrifice and meal offering Thou hast not desired; 9y ears Thou hast opened.

#f we follow this latter reading% the author of ,ebrews has not only mis/uoted the passage% but has made it an important plank of his argument. $nly the rendering of the 566 :ustifies this as a 9essianic passage. *id the author of ,ebrews get it wrong? Was it an inspired mistake? #n &cts D0=A St. Stephen relates the story of the #sraelite nation and refers to *+

people who traveled from (anaan to gypt in the emigration of 'acob3s family. This is not what )enesis A6 states in our Bibles% where it catalogues *, so:ourners. But the 566 lists DB people% confirming St. Stephen3s account% with the differences accounted for by the grand< and great<grandchildren of 'oseph 4)en A60@C<@@7. 9ost importantly% it is only in the 566 that #saiah3s prophecy of the ?irgin Birth makes its bold appearance 4#s D0=A7. The ,ebrew te!t uses the word "woman" 4"marah"7 instead of "virgin" 4"parthenos"7. #n their earliest confrontations with (hristians% the 'ews ob:ected most strongly to this verse being used to support of 'esus3 9essiahship. The 'ews claimed that #saiah was prophesying of 2ing ,e8ekiah and he knew nothing of a miraculous virgin birth. The Septuagint% they said% had been tampered with. The early (hristians responded by claiming that it was not they% but the -ews who had cut passages out of the ,ebrew te!t out of envy. 4'ustin 9artyr% Trypho% D=<D>7 #f we agree with the ancient 'ews that the 566 translation was a faulty translation% then why is this inferior te!t part of ,oly% #nspired Scripture? #f we follow the usage of the +ew Testament% could it not be said that the 566 was considered trustworthy and even preferred by the &postles? This is not out of harmony with the testimony of the arly (hurch in the )reek speaking world% which% as partly evidenced by the earlier patristic /uotation% regarded it as a sound and inspired translation. &s a Bible believing (hristian% facing this dilemma was not easy. # felt that by trying to honestly grapple with te!tual issues% # was /uestioning the authority of )od3s Word. This is not at all what # intended. # simply wanted integrity in my (hristian faith. With time% as # struggled through some of these facts% # reali8ed # needed to come to Scripture on its own terms% not on my e!pectations as a twentieth century Westerner. This desire for integrity aided me as # swallowed hard and proceeded to study the canon of the $ld Testament. $hat Is in the Septuagint! &ll Scripture is inspired and% in both St. Paul and St. Timothy3s mind% that meant the 566. So much is clear. But the 566 included the books we know today as the &pocrypha. The earliest copies of the )reek Bible we possess% such as the (ode! &le!andrinus and (ode! Siniaticus 4A<Bth centuries7 include the &pocrypha. &nd it is not placed in a separate section in the back of the code! but is rather interspersed by book according to literature typeEthe historical books with

2ings and (hronicles% the wisdom literature with Proverbs and the Song of Solomon% and so forth. These books were used by the ,ellenic 'ewish communities and certain Palestinian 'ewish groups such as the ssenes. The &pocrypha retained respect in various 'ewish communities until around thirty years after Paul3s death when the Pharisees% in the council of 'amnia% and discussed a number of issues% among which was the 'ewish canon. &lthough the influence of this council is disputed% what is clear is that in its aftermath the &pocrypha was decidedly re:ected by the Pharisees% who then proceeded to dominate 'udaism. #t seems unusual that most vangelical (hristians today embrace 'amnia as defining their canon. &fter all% the men at this council were not (hristians. .ather they were vehemently opposed to (hrist and the &postles and intended to e!punge it from 'ewish life. The early (hristians paid no heed to the council of 'amnia and continued to use the &pocrypha% and with good reason. .ead% for instance% what is written in the book of Wisdom0
5et us beset the :ust one% because he is obno!ious to us; he sets himself against our doings% .eproaches us for transgressions of the law and charges us with violations of our training. ,e professes to have knowledge of )od and styles himself a child of the 5ord. To us he is the censure of our thoughts; merely to see him is a hardship for us% Because his life is not like other men3s% and different are his ways. ,e :udges us debased; he holds aloof from our paths as from things impure. ,e calls blest the destiny of the :ust and boasts that )od is his 1ather. 5et us see whether his words be true; let us find out what will happen to him. 1or if the :ust one be the son of )od% he will defend him and deliver him from the hand of his foes. With revilement and torture let us put him to the test that we may have proof of his gentleness and try his patience. 5et us condemn him to a shameful death; for according to his own words% )od will take care of him. 4Wisdom @0=@<@C7

#s such a powerful 9essianic passage% written before (hrist% merely a coincidence? $r could the &pocrypha be inspired Scripture? The Apocrypha Cannot be Inspired %ecause&&& .hat/ !he Apocrypha inspired/ 0ever1 &s vangelicals we have been raised with the understanding that there are only >F books of the $ld Testament% uni/ue and unlike any other. +o (hristian could seriously believe in the &pocryphaG This attitude is competently demonstrated by )eisler and +i! who% in their book 2rom God to 3s% give reasons why the &pocrypha cannot be accepted. Because...

&&&o the testimony o Jesus and the "e# Testament #riters #t is true there is no direct /uotation in the +ew Testament from the &pocrypha. But% before smugly moving on% we should recogni8e that there are allusions to and use of the &pocrypha. 1or instance% when the Sadducees came to 'esus to challenge him on the issue of the .esurrection 49t @@0@><>>7% they refer to seven brothers among them who% in turn% married the same woman% dying before having children. This story is neither ludicrous nor an invention. .ather% it is a speculative /uestion probably based on the situation of Sarah in Tobit 4Tob >0D<=D7. She found herself facing perpetual virginity as seven marriages had resulted in death% each husband dying on the night of their marriage. "#n the resurrection therefore whose wife of the seven shall she be?" asked the Sadducees regarding Sarah3s plight. 'esus3 parable of the widow and the uncaring :udge 45k =H0=<H7 is a variation of a set of proverbs found in the Wisdom of Sirach 4 cclus >B0=><=B7. St. Paul makes numerous allusions to the wisdom and power of )od which have powerful affinity with the Book of Wisdom% the theology of which is strongly (hristian. $ne fine e!ample of this is found in .omans0
Therefore% :ust as through one man sin entered into the world% and death through sin% and so death spread to all mean% because all sinned. 4.om B0=@7

This understanding of the 1all does not depend solely on the passage in )enesis% which does not directly blame the e!istence of sin today on &dam3s transgression. #t is there% but St. Paul3s e!egesis of this passage is informed by Wisdom0
But by the envy of the devil% death entered the world% and they who are in his possession e!perience it. 4Wis @0@A7

#t is true that the authors do not call these books inspired. But what books do the +T authors declare to be inspired? The argument can work both ways. There are seventeen books the +ew Testament does not /uoteE'oshua% 'udges% 8ekiel% 8raI+ehemiah and (hronicles to name but a few. &re these then dubious? The nearest citation to the (hronicles is% with a stretch of details% a reference by 'esus to the killing of a certain Jechariah 49t @>0>B% 5k ==0B=7. *oes an indirect reference like this really establish that the (hronicles are inspired? #n fact% the Bible doesn3t specifically call any book inspired% aside from the passage we are looking at in ## Timothy. Should we? Possibly we need to accept that when the +T cites a book or refers to a prophet

of 'ehovah the authors automatically assume spiritual authority in the writing% on the part of both themselves and their audience. &&&o the testimony o early Christian synods The purpose of local synods% before the advent of the ecumenical councils% was to decide regional disputes% not to establish the fundamental doctrines of the faith. 1ormulating a canon of Scripture was never up for discussion. ,owever% if it had been% the &pocryphal books would have certainly received a warm response. ,ere are e!cerpts from the acts of two early local synods.
...,oly Scripture meets and warns us% saying...."&nd fear not the words of a sinful man% for his glory shall be dung and worms. Today he is lifted up% and tomorrow he shall not be found% because he is turned into his earth% and his thought shall perish 4# 9ac @06@%6>7." (yprian% p. =A% @nd council of (arthage% &* @B@% 4&+1 ?0>>F7 Kuietus of Baruch said0 We who live by faith ought to obey with careful observance those things which before have been foretold for our instruction. 1or it is written in Solomon0 ",e that is bapti8ed from the dead% 4and again toucheth the dead%7 what availeth his washing 4 cclus >A0@B7?" Dth council of (arthage% &* @B6% 4&+1 ?0B6H7

&&&o the testimony o the great 'athers o the early church $rigen% (yril of 'erusalem and &thanasius are specifically cited by )eisler and +i! as speaking against the &pocrypha. This is /uite an interesting allegation because anyone familiar with the writings of these% and other (hurch 1athers% will know that precisely the opposite is true. L.ebmaster 0ote# Actually, 4rigen was condemned as a heretic by the 5oly 2athers of the 2ifth 6cumenical Synod. !his does not mean that he did not have many good things to say. 7r. 8alvesmaki9s points still hold. am merely correcting his statement that he is a 2ather of the :hurch.M $rigen% in his commentaries on the )ospels of St. 'ohn and St. 9atthew% cites 'udith% Wisdom% cclesiasticus% additions to *aniel and sdras #. $ther 1athers before $rigen% such as (lement of .ome% Polycarp% (lement of &le!andria and #renaeus all /uote from the &pocrypha. #t is difficult to find a 1ather who does not /uote the &pocrypha as Scripture. St. &thanasius% in his festal letter of >6D% lists the books of the $ld Testament and includes in his canon those parts of the &pocrypha associated with 'eremiah and *aniel% while e!cluding the whole of sther. ,e also commends other books of the &pocrypha as suitable for the instruction of new (hristians% although he does not rate them as Scripture. St. &thanasius3 intent in writing the

letter was to e!clude the apocryphal and spurious gospels of the second century and later% not the writings we know today as the &pocrypha. $rigen% the third century scholar and theologian who knew both ,ebrew and )reek% is worth /uoting on this sub:ect0
LWMhen we notice Lcanonical differences between the ,ebrew N 566M% we are LurgedM to re:ect as spurious the copies in use in our (hurches% and en:oin the brotherhood to put away the sacred books current among them% and to coa! the 'ews.... &re we to suppose that that Providence which in the sacred Scriptures has ministered to the edification of all the (hurches of (hrist% had no thought for those bought with a price% for whom (hrist died...? #n all these cases consider whether it would not be well to remember the words% "Thou shalt not remove the ancient landmarks which thy fathers have set." 4 p &fr A%B7

&&&o the testimony o (uther ) the Re ormers #t is true that the .eformers generally subscribed to the ,ebrew canon. &nd yet even then they were not hostile towards the &pocrypha. 5uther included them in his translation of the Bible as being helpful to read. The original translation of the 2ing 'ames ?ersion included the &pocrypha and was included in subse/uent printings until the =Fth century. &ccording to the Book of (ommon Prayer it was them that "the L nglishM (hurch doth read for e!ample of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine..." 4&rt 67. What a long way we have come% where these books have fallen from honor to derisionG &&&o the innovation o the council o Trent &lthough the council of Trent was late% it did not mark a change in the canon% but rather reflected the use of Scripture since the time of the &postles. )enerally we do not need to clarify that which is not under dispute. Op to then .ome had no need to define her canon. +o church in the world% from &rmenia to thiopia to .ome% had /uestioned the &pocrypha. $nly Protestants% preferring their own wisdom to that of the rest of (hristendom% prompted the canon to be defined. &&&o the testimony o *hilo+ Josephus and the Council o Jamnia &s mentioned before% the testimony% or lack thereof% of these 'ewish scholars carried little weight with (hristians in the early centuries. Should it be any different for us? Were the sons of the Pharisees spiritually fit to establish the canon? #n trying to redirect authority for the canon from the )reek to the ,ebraic world% )eisler and +i! state0

"Palestine was the home of the 'ewish canon% not &le!andria% gypt. The great )reek learning center in gypt was no authority in determining which books belonged in the 'ewish $ld Testament." 4)eisler N +i!% F67

(ertainly &le!andria was not the "home" of the 'ewish canon% but does the $ld Testament belong to 'ews or (hristians? The /uestion for us does not revolve around what was in the -ewish $ld Testament but the :hristian oneG Who are the competent authorities on that /uestion? #f we respect the 'ewish decision on the canon% should we then reconsider our position regarding the 9essiah% the Sabbath and the 5aw? &&&o St& Jerome,s testimony The opinions of one man do not form the mind of the (hurch. St. &ugustine% his contemporary% begged to differ with him% as did previous and later 1athers. &&&o the testimony o Re ormation-period Roman Catholic scholars )eisler and +i! cite (ardinals (a:etan and 6imenes as distinguishing the &pocrypha% in an effort to show that .ome was divided on the sub:ect. This may result from our age<long misunderstanding of (atholicism. Through history (atholics have recogni8ed differences within the $ld Testament% not :ust of the &pocrypha% but of the ,istories% Prophets and the 5aw. The .oman (atholic (hurch still recogni8es that distinction by calling the apocryphal books deuterocanonical 4second canon7. (atholics distinguish% but do not separate% the &pocrypha% which perfectly accommodates the thought of the above (atholic *octors. *roblems in the Apocrypha There are passages of the &pocrypha which many vangelicals find disturbing or problematic. &nd yet% if we are honest% those passages have their counterparts in the $ld Testament. 1or instance% much has been made of what% on the first reading% seems to be an occultic use of animal parts in the book of Tobit. But before re:ecting this story% pause for a moment. Think of how 'acob bred his flock 4)en >C0@B<A>7. *oesn3t it seem that he used folk magic and dowsing techni/ues? #f this story had not been included in the canon and we read it for the first time today% wouldn3t we react :ust as awkwardly? *on3t 'acob3s actions seem to smack of )od<sanctioned occultic practices :ust as much as Tobit3s? Possibly our reaction against these kind of stories emanates not from their content but from being raised in a secular culture and worldview that scoffs the miraculous and )od working

through the physical. There are unusual things waiting for new readers of the &pocrypha. Pet there is much that is already familiar to us as it is genuinely (hristian. Some vangelicals find that% after reading these books% they return to familiar Scriptures and discover a new depth and authenticity to them. $thers begin to reali8e that the $ld Testament canon is not a black and white issue. All Scripture is "ot ./ual Such a statement may come as a shock. #f anything sounds like an attack on Scripture% this does. Some background is necessary. #n pre<(hristian synagogue worship% when Scripture was read% the congregation responded differently to various sections of the $ld Testament. The historical books "ranked" lowest% and above that came the Psalter and the Prophets. But when the 5aw was read% everyone in the synagogue stood. ,ere% for them% was the core of )od3s revelation and% above all other books% the 5aw of 9oses merited full attention. The same happened in early (hristianity after the &postles died. But instead of the 5aw% it was the )ospels which compelled the faithful to stand in respect. The teaching and words of 'esus% the +ew and Spiritual 5aw% were seen as the pinnacle of the revelation of Scripture. The early (hristians3 hermeneutic of the rest of the Bible began and ended with the words of (hrist. The )ospels were the core of their canon. St. Paul was understood in the light of 'esus% not vice versa. #s this ordering of Scripture so strange? We do it ourselves% although we do not readily admit it. #f we consider all the sermons we have heard% cataloguing the references used% we will find that some books typically merit more thought and discourse than others. #n many Protestant churches .omans and )alatians are focused upon while ## Peter% 'ames N 'ude are not. #n the $ld Testament% the Psalms are read more fre/uently than +umbers. #f any church or tradition really sought to cover Scripture e/ually they would have to slate four times more sermons on the $ld Testament than on the +ewG The 'aith o the Septuagint The astern $rthodo! (hurch has been most faithful to the &postles3 $ld Testament. They retain the 566 and generally base their translations of the $ld Testament on it. Without needing ob:ective proof for the veracity of this translation% they have simply held to what the &postles gave them. Their approach to the canon has not been philosophical or deductive% but spiritual%

trusting that )od established and is now watching over the (hurch which ,e established. #n the West we have always laughed at this kind of childish faith% preferring that which is more concrete and ob:ective. Pet there has been terrible vindication of astern simplicity this century. The *ead Sea Scrolls testify to the general reliability of the 566. &s the various passages of the Bible have been translated and published% scholars have reali8ed that previous dismissal of the 566 has been premature. Passages from the 5aw and historical books have uncovered evidence for a separate ,ebrew te!tual recension which underlies the translation of the 566. 9ore times than not the ancient manuscripts of Kumran agree with the )reek against the 9assoretic Te!t.
#t seems now that% to scholars engaged on this work in the future% Kumran has offered a new basis for a confidence in the 566 in at least the historical books% which should allow them to accept the better readings of that version almost as readily as if they were found in the ,ebrew 9T. #n other words% each reading must in future be :udged on its merits% not on any preconceived notion of the superiority of the ,ebrew version% simply because it is ,ebrew. 4&llegro% H=7

Kumranic scholars have not submitted absolute vindication of one te!tual tradition over another but they have reopened the /uestion of translation of the $ld Testament. The answer to the direction of future translations% now% could be pivotally determined by theologians rather than te!tual scholars. &llegro% and others% argue for an eclectic translation of the $ld Testament which would provoke all and satisfy none. ,owever% in the future% we may find ourselves asking not% "Which version seems best?" but% "Which version best reflects (hrist?" 1or the answer to the latter the 566 has been long in waiting. Rethinking the Old Testament 9ost vangelical arguments for the $ld Testament canon are% at best% ad hoc. $ur leaders and teachers paint a simple% pristine picture of the transmission of Scripture% as if the canon was all but leather<bound and cross<referenced. "This canon is true because it is self<evident% internally consistent and all sensible early testimony agrees with us%" goes the typical argument. &nd when% in opening the record of history% we find this to be not the case% we add a long string of 3but3s and 3e!cept3s. This does not go very far. With such an approach to the Scriptures% trying to take them out of their place in history% is it any wonder why so many Bible<believing (hristians have lost their faith to 5iberals% who are willing to deal more thoroughly with the historical record?

$hat Can $e (earn! We vangelicals need a strong dose of theological humility. When we e!amine history it does not always match our e!pectations or our e!perience. We preach often on the importance of confessing our personal sins and errors% but rarely apply this principle to our corporate spiritual walk with other churches and other communions. *oes humility only apply to the individual% or also to entire bodies? Some of us% myself included% have denied the name (hristian to churches which have beliefs and practices which are closer to the 1athers who helped give us the canon. Possibly it is time to begin to treat with respect those churches which have retained the &pocrypha simply in their effort to be faithful to what the &postles handed to them. Silence and /uietness is in order. &s vangelicals we often act from e!cessive and ignorant 8eal. 9ight it not be time to stop% pause% and learn? #t would do us no harm to prayerfully read the 1athers% some of whom were closer to 'esus and the &postles in time% language% culture and doctrine. Possibly we need to listen to what the (atholics and $rthodo! say to us before we :udge them. 9ost of what we learn about these ancient bodies come from Protestant sources. We should trust them to tell their own story. &s 'esus says% ".ecogni8e what is in your sight% and that which is hidden from you will become plain to you." 4)ospel of Thomas B7 .hat/ -esus never said that1 ,ow do you know? Who says the )ospel of Thomas should not be in the +ew Testament? We will look at the answer to this% and e!amine the canon of the +ew Testament in our ne!t essay% "*o +ot &dd to ,is Words."
Bibliography
'ohn &llegro% !he (ead Sea Scrolls# A ;eappraisal. =FB6 45ondon0 Penguin% =FHC% @nd ed.7 !he <ook of :ommon =rayer. 45ondon0 Oniversity Press% (ambridge7 5ancelot (. 5. Brenton% ed. !he Septuagint with Apocrypha# Greek and 'nglish. =HB=. 4Peabody0 ,endrickson% =FF@7 +orman 5. )eisler and William . +i!.% 2rom God to 3s# 5ow we Got our <ible, 4(hicago0 9oody Press% =FDA7 dgar '. )oodspeed% !he Story of the Apocrypha% 4(hicago0 Oniversity of (hicago =F>F7 .oberts% &le!ander and 'ames *onaldson% eds. Ante>0icene 2athers. =HHB. 4Peabody0 ,endrickson% =FFA7

&ll Bible /uotations% e!cept &pocryphal% which come from the +ew &merican Bible% are taken from the +ew &merican Standard Bible.