Bible History

[Anna]

When did the Bible as we know it begin?

What date do we see the first bound edition of Holy Scriptures?

Who declared those Scriptures to be the inspired Word of God?

How long were they read as the inspired Word of God before changes were instituted?

Who instituted the first changes in the inspired Word of God?

On what authority was he able to do this?

These are the questions that plague me with the people who claim that the Bible is the sole source of Truth.

Hope you'll please answer each one, and cite your sources.

Pax Christi. <><

[Circle_Master]

from what point are you talking about? Starting at the beginning of time? 1000 B.C.? 0 A.D. and on? Please clarify which section of Scriptures, or if all of them.

[Jake Huether]

She said the Bible.

Which is the New and Old Testiments combined.

Hope that answers your question. And I look forward to your response.

[Aloysius]

she's not asking when they were written. she's asking when they were compiled and by what authority were they declared the inspired word of God?

[Anna]

Thank you, Al and Jake.

That's exactly what I am asking.

[ironmonk]

Encyclopedia Britannica has some indepth information of it.

God Bless,

ironmonk

[Anna]

But where do our separated brothers get their info on it?????? Even the two of them disagree...

Pax Christi. <><

[Paladin D]

If anyone is interested...

Taken from Catholicism For Dummies:

"To understand the history of the Bible, you really have to go back to 1800 B.C. when the oral tradition of the Hebrew people started, because Abraham and his tribes were nomadic people and didn't have a written language of their own. Mothers and fathers verbally (oral) handed down (the Latin word tradition means to hand down and it's the root of the English word for tradition) the stories of the Old Testament about Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, the Tower of Babel, Noah and the Ark, and so on. Bibles weren't available back then, and folks didn't even have any written parchments either. It was all told by word of mouth, which we call oral tradition.

Moses appeared in 1250 B.C. when the Hebrew people were delivered from the bondage of slavery in Egypt and centered the Promised Land. The era of Moses opened the road to some of the written word, because Moses was raised in the court of Pharaoh, and so he learned how to read and write. But the predominant bulk of revelation was still the oral tradition, handed down from generation to generation, because the rest of the Hebrews were slaves and most were unable to read or write at that time. According to pious tradition, Moses composed the first five books of the Hebrew Bible, what Christians call the Old Testament, namely, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. The proof that he really did write them, however, is inconclusive. Pious tradition refers to belief without documented proof, but Sacred Tradition, on the other hand, is considered revealed, accurate, and true, because the belief came from God.

Substantial writings weren't saved until 950 B.C., during the reign of King Solomon. But after the death of King Solomon, his kingdom was divided between the northern (Israel) and the southern (Judah) kingdoms.

The Assyrians conquered Israel in 721 B.C. and initiated the first diaspora, the dispersion of many Jews, so they wouldn't be centrally located in one area as they had been in their own kingdom of the North. When the Babylonians conquered the South in 587 B.C., they, too, dispersed more Jews to thin out the territory and prevent a restoration of a Jewish kingdom. During the time of Babylonian captivity and exile, the Jews of the diaspora were spread all over the known world. Some retained their Hebrew language, but most lost it and adopted the common language - Greek. (If you could read and write at this time of history, you were reading and writing Greek.)

Consequently, in the year 250 B.C., an effort was underway to translate all Jewish Scripture into Greek language. The thing is, more Jews lived outside of Palestine than in. In the third century B.C., nearly two-fifths of the population in Egypt alone, especially in Alexandria, was Jewish and yet unable to read and write in Hebrew. These Greek-speaking Jews were known as Hellenistic Jews.

According to pious tradition, 70 scholars gathered together to begin the daunting task of translation, hence the term Septuagint from the number 70 in Greek for this version of the Bible. However, no parallel effort was afoot at this time to compile a strictly Hebrew collection of the Old Testament books. Because most of the world's Jews were no longer speaking Hebrew but speaking Greek, the need for an all-Greek version of the Jewish Scripture was obvious. The smaller community of Hebrew-speaking Jews in the Holy Land wasn't as plentiful, influential, or interested at that time to compile a strictly Hebrew version. The Septuagint Version of the Bible (sometimes abbreviated by the Roman numerals LXX for 70) contained 46 books and became the standard collection of Jewish Scripture, at least for the Hellenistic Jews, and even the Jews in Palestine accepted this collection of books.

Seven of the 46 books were never composed or written originally in the Hebrew language but were regarded as inspired texts nonetheless. These seven books - the Books of Baruch, Maccabees I and II, Tobit, Judith, Ecclesiasticus (also known as Sirach), and Wisdom - were known and used by Jews even in the Holy Land, including Jesus and his disciples. The early Christians likewise accepted the inspired status of these seven books, because no one had refuted them during the time of Christ. Because they were later additions to the more ancient Hebrew writings, however, these seven books were called the Deuterocanonical Books (meaning second canon); the 39 Hebrew books were known as the Canonical Books.

Jewish authorities in Jerusalem had no explicit objection to these seven books until the year A.D. 100, well after the Christians had split from formal Judaism and formed their own separate religion. The Temple of Jerusalem was destroyed in A.D. 70, and in the year A.D. 100, Jewish leaders at the Council of Jamnia sought to purify Judaism of all foreign and Gentile influence, which meant removing anything not purely Hebrew. Because the seven Deuterocanonical Books were never written in Hebrew, they got pitched.

By now, though, Christianity was totally separate from Judaism and didn't doubt the authenticity of the seven books, because these books were always considered equal to the other 39. That is, at least until Martin Luther initiated the Protestant Reformation in 1517 and chose to adopt the Hebrew canon (39 books) rather than the Greek canon (46 books) of the old Septuagint (LXX).

So in the listing of the Old Testament, a discrepancy exists between the Catholic and the Protestant Bibles. Catholic Bibles list 46 books and Protestant Bibles list 39. Recently, though, many publishers have added the seven books in Protestant Bibles, such as the King James Version, but they're carefully placed in the back, after the end of the canonical texts, and they're identified as being part of the Apocrypha, which is from the Greek word apokryphos meaning hidden.

So what the Catholic Church considers Deuterocanonical, Protestant theologians consider Apocrypha. And what the Catholic Church considers Apocrypha, Protestants call Pseudepigrapha (meaning false writings), which are the alleged and so-called Lost Books of the Bible. These Lost Books were never considered as being inspired by the Church, so they were never included as part of any Bible, Catholic or Protestant. Such books as the Assumption of Moses, Apocalypse of Abraham, the Ascension of Isaiah, the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Peter, the Acts of St. John, and others, were all considered uninspired and therefore never made it into the Bible.

Interestingly enough, Catholics and Protestants have never seriously disputed the list of the New Testament books, and both the Catholic and Protestant Bibles have the exact same names and number (27) of books in the New Testament."

[Anna]

Do our non-Catholic posters care to refute this, or agree with it?

Pax Christi. <><

[Anna]

Perhaps the glaring truth of history is blinding them...or they're just hoping that if they ignore this little insignificant piece of history, it'll all go away...

But then how can they place their faith in the Bible, if they refuse to admit where It came from?

It's so hard to face the Truth, that the Catholic Church compiled the Bible, by request of Pope Damasus shortly before 400 AD.

Christians--all Catholics at that time--all used this same Bible until the protestant revolt, some 1,100 years later, initiated by Martin Luther, who removed several books from their rightful place in the Bible and, calling them "apocrypha" or uninspired, placed them in the back of His new protestant version of Scripture, since he still admitted that those books were good for reading. Since then, the books he removed from the New Testament have all been put back in the rightful order, but the Old Testament books were never replaced. Hence, the protestant bible lacks seven books which the Catholic Bible has always preserved and retained.

Martin Luther had no authority to alter Scripture. Even the Catholic pope himself has never done such a thing.

So protestants embrace Martin Luther's Sola Scriptura, relying on Scripture alone. A doctrine made up by a man, using a bible edited and altered by that same man, and others.

Only the Catholic Church has safeguarded and revered the Holy Scriptures; for She wrote It, and only She interprets It infallibly.

Pax Christi. <><

[Anna]

Taken from Catholicism For Dummies:

Seven of the 46 books were never composed or written originally in the Hebrew language but were regarded as inspired texts nonetheless. These seven books - the Books of Baruch, Maccabees I and II, Tobit, Judith, Ecclesiasticus (also known as Sirach), and Wisdom - were known and used by Jews even in the Holy Land, including Jesus and his disciples. The early Christians likewise accepted the inspired status of these seven books, because no one had refuted them during the time of Christ. Because they were later additions to the more ancient Hebrew writings, however, these seven books were called the Deuterocanonical Books (meaning second canon); the 39 Hebrew books were known as the Canonical Books.

Jewish authorities in Jerusalem had no explicit objection to these seven books until the year A.D. 100, well after the Christians had split from formal Judaism and formed their own separate religion. The Temple of Jerusalem was destroyed in A.D. 70, and in the year A.D. 100, Jewish leaders at the Council of Jamnia sought to purify Judaism of all foreign and Gentile influence, which meant removing anything not purely Hebrew. Because the seven Deuterocanonical Books were never written in Hebrew, they got pitched.

By now, though, Christianity was totally separate from Judaism and didn't doubt the authenticity of the seven books, because these books were always considered equal to the other 39. That is, at least until Martin Luther initiated the Protestant Reformation in 1517 and chose to adopt the Hebrew canon (39 books) rather than the Greek canon (46 books) of the old Septuagint (LXX).

So in the listing of the Old Testament, a discrepancy exists between the Catholic and the Protestant Bibles. Catholic Bibles list 46 books and Protestant Bibles list 39. Recently, though, many publishers have added the seven books in Protestant Bibles, such as the King James Version, but they're carefully placed in the back, after the end of the canonical texts, and they're identified as being part of the Apocrypha, which is from the Greek word apokryphos meaning hidden.

So what the Catholic Church considers Deuterocanonical, Protestant theologians consider Apocrypha. And what the Catholic Church considers Apocrypha, Protestants call Pseudepigrapha (meaning false writings), which are the alleged and so-called Lost Books of the Bible. These Lost Books were never considered as being inspired by the Church, so they were never included as part of any Bible, Catholic or Protestant. Such books as the Assumption of Moses, Apocalypse of Abraham, the Ascension of Isaiah, the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Peter, the Acts of St. John, and others, were all considered uninspired and therefore never made it into the Bible.

Interestingly enough, Catholics and Protestants have never seriously disputed the list of the New Testament books, and both the Catholic and Protestant Bibles have the exact same names and number (27) of books in the New Testament."

Guess what, Paladin D?

There is a flaw in the Catholic for Dummies history!

Baruch, 1 Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, and Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) were originally written in Hebrew; they were translated into Greek along with the other Septuagint writings . The Hebrew text was later lost in the vagaries of antiquity, and they were preserved only in Greek. Sirach was recovered in Hebrew among the Dead Sea Scrolls. Only 2 Maccabees and Wisdom (The Wisdom of Solomon) were originally written in Greek.

The 39 books were not called "canonical" until much later. There was no "canon" of Scripture for the Jews until the Palestinian rabbis at Jamnia established a list, or "canon," of accepted writings in 90-100 A.D. The Church by then had been using the Greek Scriptures for many years, having received them directly from Christ and the Apostles! The Church didn't just "make them up," nor did she "add them in later."

The rules set by these rabbis for the canon of the Hebrew Scriptures were designed to discredit the Greek Septuagint, which had been adopted by the Christians. The Septuagint was the foundation for the Christian claims that Jesus was the Son of David, the Son of God, the Jewish Messiah.

To be accepted into their canon, the rabbis declared that a writing had to:

1. conform to the Pentateuch,

2. originate in Palestine,

3. be written in Hebrew,

4. and could date no later than 400 B.C

That eliminated anything in the Greek Septuagint!

Pax Christi. <><

[mulls]

Perhaps the glaring truth of history is blinding them...or they're just hoping that if they ignore this little insignificant piece of history, it'll all go away...

nice attitude.

Edited January 21, 2004 by mulls

[mulls]

from another thread, Anna referring to Bro Adam.

Cuz whenever rude or insulting protestants begin attacking our beliefs, we tell them we have this cool protestant friend who posts here who knows how to be respectful and charitable!!! 

funny you should mention these characterisitcs. practice what you preach.

[Anna]

mulls,

Your point?

History is factual, unlike doctrine. Men may be able to make up false doctrines, but they cannot falsify history.

If you have a problem with me personally, why not follow the guidelines, mulls, and address the matter by private message?

Pax Christi. <><

Edited January 21, 2004 by Anna

[NewReformation]

To paraphrase a dead man: 'We are compelled to confess to the Papists, that without them, we would not have the scriptures.'