History of the Old Testament Canon

A correct understanding of the history of the Bible and the collection of its books is not only of great interest to
the reader of the Word of God but is necessary to refute the false accusations of those who are influenced in
their thinking by the high criticism. Since it has sometimes been asserted that the collection of the books of the
Old Testament was made shortly before the ministry of Jesus Christ, or at the Jewish council of Jamnia, after
the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in AD 70, it is necessary know the facts to see the fallacy of such
statements.

The Canon.-
The word canon was used by the Greeks to designate a rule invested with authority. The apostle Paul uses
the word in that sense in Gal. 6: 16. From the second century onward, the rule of Christian teachings was
continually resorted to with phrases such as "canon of the church," the "canon of truth," or the "canon of faith"
(see Brooke Foss Westcott, History of the Canon, 7th ed., p. 514).

Origen (185?-254?), one of the church fathers, first used the word canon to designate the collection of books
of the Bible recognized as a rule of faith and practice. He said that "no one should use to prove doctrine books
not included among the canonized Scriptures" (Commentary on Matt., sec. 28). Athanasius (293?-373 AD)
later called the entire collection of books sanctioned by the church "canon," and this is the meaning with which
the word was introduced into church language (Westcott, History of the Canon, p. 518, 519).

Ancient and modern division of the Old Testament.-

The term "Old Testament canon" simply means the 39 Old Testament books accepted by Protestants that
were written by inspired prophets, historians, and poets in pre-Christian times. The current division into three
sections - historical, poetic and prophetic - containing 39 books, has originated in the Greek and Latin
translations of the Bible where such a division is found. The Hebrew Old Testament consisted of 24 books,
which were divided into the following three main divisions:
1. The law (torah) containing the five books of Moses, or Pentateuch.
2. The prophets (nebi'im) subdivided into:
(a) Four "former" ones, Joshua, Judges, (1 and 2) Samuel and (1 and 2) Kings, and
(b) Four "later" ones, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and the twelve minor prophets in one book.
3. The writings (ketubim), made up of the remaining eleven books, of which Ezra, Nehemiah and 1 and 2
Chronicles each form a single book.

The threefold division of the Hebrew Old Testament at the time of Christ is confirmed by his own words:
"Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in:
[1] the law of Moses, in
[2] the prophets and in
[3] the psalms [the first book of the third division]" (Luke. 24: 44).

Before the exile in Babylon.-

The origin of many of the books of the Old Testament, taken separately, can be traced back to their authors.
(Authority is discussed in the Introduction that appears at the beginning of each book, in this commentary.)
However, there is no information available regarding larger collections of the Old Testament books before the
Babylonian exile. Pre-exilic references to biblical books allude to the Pentateuch.
God warned Joshua that "this book of the law will never depart from your mouth" (Josh. 1:8), and Joshua,
Moses' successor, encouraged the people to "do everything that is written in the book of the law of Moses"
(ch. 23: 6). He also held a large meeting where instructions were publicly read from the "book of the law" (ch.
8: 34).

David also knew the Pentateuch and tried to live according to its precepts, as can be deduced from the advice
he gave to his son Solomon, to keep the statutes, commandments, decrees and testimonies of the Lord "as it
is written in the law of Moses" (1 Kings. 2: 3). King Amaziah of Judah also received praise for following certain
requirements as written "in the book of the law of Moses" (2 Kings. 14: 6). These isolated testimonies from the
Bible show that the Pentateuch was known from the time of Moses to the period of the kings of Judah.
However, there were times, especially during the reign of godless kings, when the Scriptures were hardly
known and, so to speak, had to be rediscovered.

For example, this happened in the time of King Josiah, when during the repair of the temple, "the book of the
law" was found and read, and its requirements were put into practice once again (2 Kings. 22:8 to 23:24).

In the time of Ezra-Nehemiah.-

In the Old Testament books that were written after the exile, such as those of Ezra and Nehemiah, reference
is made, either by name or by quotation, to several of the oldest books of the Bible. There is also talk of
certain books that have been partially incorporated into the post-exilic books of Scripture, or have been lost.
The 5 books of Moses - under the names "books of Moses", "law of Jehovah", "book of the law of Jehovah",
etc. - appear mentioned 7 times in 1 and 2 Chronicles; 17 times in Ezra and Nehemiah and once in Malachi.
That the book of the law (torah) was considered inspired and "canonical" in the 5th century BC is seen by the
great reverence shown by the people when the book was opened (Neh. 8: 5, 6). It would seem that the
expression "book of the law" (torah) covers more than the "Pentateuch", since the same term is used once by
Jesus when referring to the Psalms, when he introduces quotes from Ps. 35:19 and 69:4 with the words:
"written in his law" (John 15:25).

Many books of pre-exilic origin survived the destruction of Jerusalem and the Babylonian captivity. This is
seen because Daniel used the book of Jeremiah during the Babylonian exile (Dan. 9:2) and because some 20
different books are mentioned in the books of Chronicles either as having provided the original material for the
content of that work, or as books where additional information could be obtained about many points that were
only touched upon superficially in the Chronicles. The post-exilic chronicler (see 2 Chron. 36:22) referred to
many books, such as "the book of the chronicles of Samuel the seer" (1 Chron. 29:29) the "chronicles" or
"books of the prophet Nathan" (1 Chron. 29:29; 2 Chron. 9:29) and "the story from the prophet's side" (2
Chron. 13: 22).

Jewish tradition indicates that Ezra and Nehemiah had an obvious part in the collection of the sacred books.
The apocryphal Second Book of Maccabees, written during the early 1st century BC, contains a letter
supposedly written by Palestinian Jews and Judas Maccabeus to the Jewish philosopher Aristobulus and
other Jews in Egypt (2 Maccabees). 1:10). This letter refers to "the files and... Memoirs of the Time of
Nehemiah" and also states that Nehemiah founded "a library" and "gathered together the books concerning
the kings and the prophets, those of David" (2 Mac. 2:13, BJ translation).

The Jewish historian Josephus is another writer who places the completion of the Old Testament canon at the
time of Ezra and Nehemiah. Shortly after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, Josephus made the following
important statement:

"From the empire of Artaxerxes to our time, all events have been written down; but they do not deserve as
much authority and faith as the books mentioned above, since there was no longer an exact succession of
prophets. This shows why we hold our books in such veneration. Despite the centuries that have passed, no
one has dared to add anything to them, or take away from them or change them" (Josephus, Against Apion, i.
8 [in Complete Works of Flavius Josephus, ed. Cultural Heritage, Buenos Aires, 1961, volume V, page.
fifteen]).

This statement shows that the Jews in the time of Christ were convinced that the canon had been fixed in the
time of Ezra and Nehemiah, who worked under Artaxerxes I. The Jews were unwilling to overturn that
decision, or to add to the Scriptures as they had been set down 500 years earlier, especially since no one
clearly recognized as a prophet had arisen since the days of Malachi.

Josephus's important statement agrees well with observations that the careful reader can make in the Old
Testament itself. The latest historical books -Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah and Esther-, for example, record the
history of Israel until the period following the exile. The Chronicles and its sequel, Ezra-Nehemiah, record
events that occurred during the 6th and 5th centuries, but not after. Therefore, the writing of the Old
Testament, as we now know it, must have been completed towards the end of the 5th century BC, since the
later continuation of the story was not added to the earlier record. It was not even preserved along with the
canonical Scriptures. Consequently, the canon must have been closed. If you wish to examine one more
statement regarding Ezra's relationship to the collection of sacred books, see Prophets and Kings, p. 448.

Between Nehemiah and the Maccabees.-

There are hardly any extant records of Jewish history during the 4th and 3rd centuries BC. Only two records
from this period are known to have any relation to the history of the Bible: (1) the tradition of Alexander's visit
to Jerusalem and (2) the preparation of the Greek translation of the Old Testament made in Egypt and called
the Septuagint (usually abbreviated LXX).
According to Josephus, Alexander's visit to Jerusalem took place after the fall of Gaza, in November 332 BC.
According to the story, when he went to punish the Jews for having refused to help him with troops in his war
against the Persians, outside the walls of Jerusalem a procession of priests met him led by the high priest
Jaddua. It is said that the king was then taken to the temple, where he was given the opportunity to offer
sacrifices and was shown, in the book of Daniel, that one of the Greeks - presumably Alexander - was
appointed by divine prophecies to destroy the empire. Persian. This pleased Alexander so much that he
conferred favors on the Jews (Josephus, Antiquities, xi. 8. 4, 5). The account, as presented by Josephus, has
been considered fictional by most scholars. Their acceptance would require the existence of the book of
Daniel in the time of Alexander the Great, while they maintain that the book was not written before the period
of the Maccabees, in the second century BC. However, there is abundant internal evidence in favor of the
truth of this story. (See Introduction to the Book of Daniel.) If true, the account provides further evidence that
the Jews not only possessed the book of Daniel but also studied the prophecies it contained.
The Septuagint translation was prepared by the Greek-speaking Jews of Egypt, but soon achieved
considerable circulation among the widely dispersed Jews. The sources to know its origin are in the reputed
Letter of Aristeas, possibly written between 96 and 63 BC; a statement by Philo, an Alexandrian Jewish
philosopher from the time of Christ (Philo, Life of Moses II. 5-7), and the books of Josephus, written shortly
afterwards (Antiquities xii. 2; Against Apion II. 4). In these works a legendary story is told regarding the
translation of the Pentateuch by 72 Jewish scholars, in 72 days, during the reign of King Ptolemy II of Egypt
(285-247 BC). The story tells us that these men worked independently, but they produced 72 copies of a
translation in which every word agreed, showing that their translation had been done under the inspiration of
the Holy Spirit. Although this story was concocted with the purpose of achieving early acceptance of the Greek
translation among the Jews and placing it on an equal footing with the Hebrew text, it undoubtedly contains
some historical facts. One of them is that translation began with the Pentateuch and was carried out under
Ptolemy II. It is not known when the translation of the entire Old Testament was completed. This may have
happened in the 3rd century BC or the beginning of the 2nd century. However, the complete Septuagint is
mentioned by the translator of the Ecclesiasticus of Jesus Ben Sirá, in the prologue he added to this
apocryphal book. The prologue was written around 132 BC, and refers to the Greek Bible as something that
already existed.

When referring to the book of Ecclesiasticus, or Wisdom of Jesus Ben Sira, which was composed in Hebrew
around the year 180 BC, it is worth noting in passing that its author had access to most of the books of the Old
Testament. This is noted because it quotes, or refers to, 19 of the 24 books of the Hebrew Bible.
From the Maccabees to Christ.-
In the 2nd century BC, the Seleucid king Antiochus Epiphanes sought to Hellenize the Jews and crush their
nationalist spirit. He eliminated their religious rites, changed their ways of life and tried to destroy their sacred
literature. After a description of the efforts made at that time to introduce pagan rites, 1 Mac. 1:56, 57 says the
following about this point:
"They tore up and threw into the fire the books of the Law that they could find. Anyone found with a copy of
the Covenant in his possession, or discovered to be observing the precepts of the Law, was sentenced to
death by virtue of the royal decree" (BJ translation).

It was probably during this period, while the reading of the books of the Pentateuch was prohibited, that the
practice of reading passages from the prophets instead of passages from the law in religious services began.
These passages from the prophetic books were later called haftarot, and were read in relation to sections of
the law as soon as the restrictions were lifted (cf. Luc. 4:16, 17; Fact. 13: 15, 27).

Many books were saved from destruction during that period of national disgrace, when the entire religious life
of the Jews was in danger. Jewish tradition holds that the preservation of many books was due to the courage
and efforts of Judas Maccabeus. In the second book of Maccabees, written in the early 1st century BC, it is
stated that Judas Maccabeus "gathered together all the books scattered because of the war that we endured,
which are in our hands" (2 Maccabees). 2: 14).

Around the year 132 BC, Jesus' grandson Ben Sirá translated his grandfather's Hebrew work, called
Ecclesiasticus, into Greek. He added a historical prologue in which the triple division of the Old Testament
canon is mentioned three times.

Around this time the first apocryphal book of Maccabees was also written. It quotes the book of Psalms (1
Mac. 7: 17). Daniel is mentioned (1 Mac. 2:60), as well as his three friends, along with Abraham, Joseph,
Joshua, David, Elijah and other ancient men of God. Here we get the clear impression that the author of 1
Maccabees considered the book from which he received the information about Daniel as one of the ancient
works, and not as a new addition to the century of the Maccabees, as higher criticism claims.

The first testimony of the expression "Scripture" used to designate certain parts of the Bible is the Letter of
Aristeas. (See sections 155 and 168 of Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, by Charles, t. 2.) That letter was
possibly written between 96 and 63 BC. That term, regularly used by the later writers of the New Testament
when referring to the books of the Old Testament, is used by Aristeas to designate the Pentateuch.

The testimony of Christ and the apostles.-

Christ not only testified to the existence of the triple division of the Hebrew Bible (Luke. 24:44) but also that he
knew the order of succession of the books. The order of the books in the Hebrew Bible is very different from
that of our modern Bibles. In accordance with the threefold division of the Hebrew Bible already explained, the
Writings section comes last, with the two books of Chronicles (one in the Hebrew canon) at the end of the Old
Testament. When Jesus told the Pharisees that they would be held accountable for crimes committed "from
the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who died between the altar and the temple" (Luke. 11:51; cf. Matt.
23: 35), made reference to Abel, the first martyr, mentioned in the first book of the Bible (Gen. 4:8) and
Zechariah, whose martyrdom is described in the last book of the Hebrew Bible (2 Chron. 24: 20-22). If Jesus
had mentioned the word "until" in a chronological sense, he would have mentioned the prophet Uriah who was
killed by Jehoiakim more than a century after Zechariah (Jer. 26: 20-23). Christ's statement thus provides
clear evidence that in his day the order of the Hebrew Bible was already firmly established.

Let Zechariah be called the "son of Berechiah" in Matt. 23:35, but "son" of "Jehoiada" in 2 Chron. 24:20,
should not be explained - as some commentators do - as a result of the confusion of Matthew, or some later
copyist, with the prophet "Zechariah son of Berekiah", who lived centuries later in the time of Darius I (Zech. .
1: 1). Zechariah's father Jehoiada may have had a middle name, as many Jews did, or Berechiah may have
been Zechariah's maternal grandfather or his real father and Jehoiada the more famous grandfather. The
word "son," meaning "grandson," was common in Hebrew usage (see 2 Kings. 9: 2, 20). Whatever the correct
interpretation of this apparent difficulty, commentators from Jerome onward have almost unanimously
recognized in the Zechariah mentioned by Jesus the man of 2 Chron. 24: 20.

Of course, Jesus Christ was a firm believer in the authority of the Bible as it existed in his time, and so were
his apostles. This is manifestly seen in 45 various statements. Jesus said, "You err, not knowing the
Scriptures" (Matt. 22: 29). Jesus presented evidence of his messianism by citing the three divisions of the Old
Testament Scriptures, when he said that "everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the law of
Moses, in the prophets, and in the psalms" (Luke. 24:44; cf. vers. 25-27). He also placed belief in the writings
of Moses alongside belief in his own teachings: "If you do not believe his writings," asked the Savior, "how will
you believe my words?" (John 5:47; cf. vers. 46). Paul declared that God had made certain promises "through
his prophets in the holy Scriptures" (Rom. 1: 2). He said to Timothy, his young collaborator: "From childhood
you have known the Holy Scriptures. . . All Scripture is inspired by God." (2 Tim. 3: 15, 16). Another equally
indubitable statement is presented by the apostle Peter: "We also have the most certain prophetic word; . .
"No prophecy of Scripture is of private interpretation, for prophecy was never brought about by the will of man,
but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit" (2 Pet. 1: 19-21). These statements clearly
show that Christ and his apostles were firmly convinced that the Old Testament - the Bible of their day - was
inspired and authoritative.

In the apostolic era the expression "Old Testament" was first used with reference to the books of the Hebrew
Bible. In a much-discussed passage, the apostle Paul says that a veil remained over the eyes of the Jews until
the apostle's days "in the lesson of the old testament" (2 Cor. 3:14 Val. ant.). Commentators are divided in
their interpretation of the expression "old testament" in this passage, but since Paul is referring to something
that is read by Jews, the most plausible explanation is to see in it a reference either to the Pentateuch or to
the entire Bible. Hebrew Bible. Since the term Old Testament implies the existence of the term New
Testament, it is possible that the apostles and other Christians may have already used this last expression to
name the writings about the life and work of Christ, perhaps one of the Gospels.

The many quotations from the Old Testament found in the New also bear important testimony to the authority
attributed to the books of the Old Testament by the authors of Christian writings. Some of the quotes are
short, and many of the expressions in the book of Revelation are very similar to those found in Daniel, but they
may not actually be quotes.
The author of this article counted 433 obvious citations in the New Testament, and found that 30 of the 39 Old
Testament books are clearly cited. The names of 10 books or their authors are mentioned in 46 New
Testament passages; The inspiration of 11 books of the Old Testament is confirmed by quotations beginning
with words indicating that God or the Holy Spirit was their author, and the term "Scripture" is applied in 21
passages of 11 books of the Old Testament, while, in 73 passages, statements of the Old Testament are
preceded by the technical expression "It is written."

Jews of the first century.-

Philo of Alexandria (died about 42 AD) was a Jewish philosopher who wrote in the time of Christ. His works
contain quotations from 16 of the 24 books of the Hebrew Bible. It may be accidental that his writings do not
contain quotations from Ezekiel, Daniel and the Chronicles and five other small books.

The historian Josephus, writing around 90 AD, made an important statement about the canon in his work
Against Apion, which we quote here because of its significance:
"We do not possess myriads of inconsequential books that antagonize each other. 46 Our books, which are
justly accredited, are but twenty-two and contain the record of all time.

"Of them, five are from Moses, and they contain the laws and the narrative of what happened from the origin
of the human race until the death of Moses. This period of time covers almost three thousand years. From
Moses until the death of Artaxerxes, who reigned among the Persians after Xerxes, the prophets who
succeeded Moses compiled in thirteen books what happened in their time. The remaining four offer hymns in
praise of God and very useful precepts to men" (Josephus, Against Apion, i. 8 [in Complete Works of Flavius
Josephus, ed. Cultural Heritage, Buenos Aires, 1961, volume V, page. fifteen] ).

Josephus' statement that the Jewish Bible contained 22 books needs an explanation, because it is known that
there were actually 24 books in the Hebrew Bible before him and in his time. Its division of 5 "books of
Moses", 13 books of "prophets", and 4 books of "hymns to God and precepts for the conduct of human life",
follows the order of the Septuagint more closely than that of the Hebrew Bible. ; understandable procedure
since he wrote for Greek-speaking readers. But the basis for his statement - that the Hebrew Bible had 22
books - was probably due to a Hebrew practice that arose among some who sought to adjust the number of
books of Scripture according to the number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet. Josephus probably computed
Ruth along with Judges, and Lamentations along with Jeremiah, or possibly left out two of the books that may
have seemed of little importance to him.
Another Jewish author of that time, who wrote the spurious work called 4 Esdras (the 2 Esdras of the
Apocrypha), is the first witness to clearly indicate that the number of books in the Hebrew Bible was 24.

Towards the end of the 1st century or the beginning of the 2nd century, a council of Jewish scholars was held
in Jamnia, south of Jaffa, in Palestine. That council was presided over by Gamaliel II, along with Rabbi Akiba,
the most influential Jewish scholar of that time, and who was the guiding spirit of the assembly. Since some
Jews considered certain apocryphal books to be of equal value to the canonical books of the Old Testament,
the Jews wanted to place their official seal on a canon that had existed unchanged for a long time and that -
so they felt - needed to be guarded against possible additions. Therefore, this council did not establish the
canon of the Old Testament but only confirmed a position held for centuries regarding the books of the
Hebrew Bible. However, it is true that, in some sectors, the canonicity of Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon,
Proverbs and Esther was questioned. But the aforementioned Rabbi Akiba removed doubts with his authority
and eloquence, and those books maintained their place in the Hebrew canon.

The early Christian church.-

In the writings of the early church fathers, all 24 books of the Hebrew Bible were accepted as canonical. Only
in the Eastern Church did occasional slight doubt arise as to the inspiration of the book of Esther. However,
the Jewish apocryphal books were not accepted by the earliest writers of the Christian church. The writings of
the so-called apostolic fathers, who produced their works after the death of the apostles until 150 AD
approximately, they do not contain any actual quotation from the Apocrypha but only a few references to them.
This shows that originally the Apocrypha were not placed on an equal footing with the canonical writings of the
Old Testament in the estimation of those church leaders.

However, the church fathers of later periods make hardly any difference between the Apocrypha and the Old
Testament. Quotes from 47 both collections begin with the same formulas. This evolution does not seem
strange in view of the early tendencies towards apostasy noticeable in many sectors of the first Christian
church. When the simplicity of the Christian faith was abandoned, men turned to books that supported their
unbiblical opinion of certain teachings, and found this partial support in the Jewish apocryphal books, rejected
even by the Jews themselves.

The Eastern and Western Church.-

Jerome (5th century), the translator of the Bible into Latin - the Vulgate - which has become the official
Catholic Bible, was the last church writer to argue forcefully in favor of accepting nothing but the Hebrew
writings and rejecting the apocrypha. However, most Western church leaders in their day accepted the
Apocrypha and gave them the same authority as the Old Testament. This can be seen from the writings of
several authors of the Middle Ages, from some teachings of the Roman Catholic Church that are based on the
Apocrypha, and from the decisions made by various regional councils of the church (Hippona in 393, Carthage
in 397). . Generally speaking, the Western church has generally recognized the Apocrypha as being of equal
value to the canonical books of the Old Testament, but writers of the Eastern churches have generally used
them much more sparingly than their Western colleagues.
The first ecumenical council to agree in favor of accepting the Old Testament Apocrypha was the Council of
Trent. Its main purpose was to draw up plans to combat the Reformation. Since the reformers sought to
eliminate all practices and teachings that had no biblical basis, and the Catholic Church could not find support
for some of its doctrines in the Bible unless the apocryphal writings were considered part of it, it was forced to
recognize them as canonical. That canonization took place on April 8, 1546, when for the first time a list of the
canonical books of the Old Testament was published by an ecumenical council. That list not only contained
the 39 books of the Old Testament, but also 7 apocryphal books* and apocryphal additions to Daniel and
Esther. Since that time, these apocryphal books - not even recognized as canonical by the Jews - have the
same authoritative value for a Roman Catholic as any book of the Bible.

Protestant criteria about the canon.-

The reformers accepted the 39 books of the Old Testament as canonical, without exception and almost
without reservation. Instead, the Apocrypha were generally rejected. Martin Luther translated them into
German and published them with the observation, on the title page, that "they are books not equal to the Holy
Scriptures, but useful and good to read."

The Anglican Church was more liberal in its use of the Apocrypha. The Book of Common Prayer prescribed, in
1662, the reading of certain sections of the apocryphal books for various feast days, as well as for daily
reading for a few weeks in the 48 autumn. However, the Thirty-Nine Articles differentiate between the
apocrypha and the canon.

The Reformed Church dealt with the Apocrypha during its council of Dordrecht in 1618. Gomarus and other
reformers demanded the removal of the Apocrypha from printed Bibles. Although this demand did not
succeed, the condemnation of the Apocrypha by the council was nevertheless so vigorous that from that time
the Reformed Church strongly opposed its use.
The greatest fight against the Apocrypha took place in England during the first half of the 19th century. A large
number of publications were published, from 1811 to 1852, to investigate the merits and errors of these
extracanonical books of the Old Testament. The result was a general rejection of the Apocrypha by
ecclesiastical leaders and theologians and a clear decision by the British and Foreign Bible Society to exclude
the Apocrypha, henceforth, from all Bibles published by that society.

Summary.-
The brief study of the history of the Old Testament canon indicates that the collection of books we call the Old
Testament was made in the 5th century BC, with Ezra and Nehemiah, the two great leaders of that
Restoration period, in all probability the leaders. of that work. This conclusion is based on the fact that the Old
Testament does not contain any later books. Jewish tradition from the 1st century BC confirms this conclusion.

The preparation of the Septuagint, which began in the 3rd century BC, is evidence that an Old Testament
canon existed at that time. Another testimony is the quotes and references of Jesús Ben Sirá to the Old
Testament, at the beginning of the 2nd century BC; a few years later, the edict of Antiochus Epiphanes to
destroy the sacred books of the Jews; and the statements of the grandson of Jesus Ben Sirá, around the year
132 BC, which mentions the triple division of the Hebrew Bible and the existence of its Greek translation in his
time.

Jesus Christ and the apostles definitely believed in the authority and inspiration of the Hebrew Bible, as can
be seen from numerous testimonies that prove this fact. Their Bible had the same threefold division and
probably the same order of the books of the current Hebrew Bible. Furthermore, hundreds of quotations taken
from at least 30 books of the Old Testament show the high esteem in which these writings were held by the
founder of the Christian faith and his immediate followers.
The history of the Old Testament canon in the Christian church, after the apostolic era, centers on the
question of accepting or rejecting the Jewish apocryphal books. Although these books were rejected by the
apostles and Christian writers until the middle of the second century, and certainly by the Jews themselves,
these spurious writings were nevertheless welcomed into the Christian church towards the end of the second
century. From then on they were never banned by the Catholic Church. The Reformers took a firm stand in
rejecting the Apocrypha, but after his death those books were once again accepted in some Protestant
churches, although they were eventually rejected by most of them in the 19th century.

More serious is the concept of the modernists regarding the Old Testament. They do not believe in the inspiration of
the Old Testament books or in their remote origin. This process of secularization - which places the Old Testament
on the same level as other ancient literary productions - is more pernicious for the Christian church than the previous
indifference towards the Apocrypha, since it destroys the believer's faith 49 in the divine origin of those books. of the
Bible of which Christ said "bear witness of me" (John 5:39).

Therefore, every Christian believer must be convinced of the divine origin of these Old Testament books
through which the Christian apostles proved the validity of their faith and doctrines. That these books have
survived several national catastrophes of the Jewish nation in ancient times and the insidious attacks of dark
forces, within and without the Christian church, is solid proof that these writings have received divine
protection. 50

Source: Adventist Bible Commentary Volume 1

Voting Table: 231728

Voting Location:

IE 6024 JOSE MARIA ARGUEDAS

See cr
oquis

Address:

AV SAN FRANCISCO SN CDRA 3 OLD ZONE

District:

VILLA MARIA DEL TRIUNFO

Province:

LIME

Department:

LIME