Who Picked What Books Went In the Old Testament?

Who made the Hebrew/Old Testament canon? And, with literally hundreds of important ancient religious documents to chose from, how did they pick which ones would be scripture and which ones wouldn't make the cut? Well, I made a video about that.

[nicholasshaler]

The Ten Minute Bible Hour is slowly becoming The Sixty Minute Bible Hour. I really like the long from content.

[someguysopinion]

This is better than some of my theology classes that I’m doing now. Keep doing what you do brother. God bless

[PeterNerlich]

Love this, too. Huge respect for your time, effort and competence presenting this is a really clear and neutral, but most of all super accessible and authentic way. Be blessed!

[EmethMatthew]

I think Matt might have overestimated the clarity of the Star Wars canon... 🤔🙃😆

[jonathanpresson]

Matt, I want to thank you for what you're doing here. I studied a lot of this in Christian Highschool and College, but have . . . lost track . . . of a lot of the details over the years. Furthermore, my wife's family is not Christian (she is, but not her parents and sister) and she has a lot of questions that you've helped answer. You've also helped me to direct my own study and given me names and details to use to begin studying. Thank you so much.

[fighterxaos]

I'm glad you made this. This is a way to respectfully show on what we Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox agree on and don't agree on. Especially to my friends who aren't as knowledgeable on the Bible as they'd like to be.

[joecastillo]

Matt,
The seven "extra books" deleted by protestants in 1825, have been part of the Christian Bible since 382AD simply because they are part of the Septuagint. Such Canon is where the greatest number of OT quotes are cited from, in the NT.

God bless.

[jamminpsd]

Im just here for the tractor mounted wood chipper

[hunterdavis]

I love the long form content. I recognize that most people probably would prefer it to be shorter but all of the information you presented is invaluable and incredibly helpful. I've never taken the time to understand the origins or history of the Bible itself and this type of content makes it seem very approachable. Thank you, Matt!

[michaeldickens]

Your videos are very, very informative - to the point, with just enough of references. Thank you!

[magiccitymelkite]

I have more recent translations for comparison, but as a Catholic, I really enjoy reading the Douay-Rheims Bible even though it is from the Latin Vulgate, so a translation of a translation, but I love how it comes from the work of St Jerome who would have had access to records we no longer have and would have had a more practical knowledge of ancient Hebrew and ancient Greek than we do today. I also think it is cool because Latin translates into English much more easily and clearly than Greek or Hebrew does. So, in many cases where the Greek or Hebrew can be translated into English in multiple ways, the Latin to English translation can be less ambiguous. So, if we trust that St Jerome had access to native speakers and contemporary sources that eliminated the ambiguity of certain Greek and Hebrew words and phrases then it can give us some insight into how those phrases were actually understood and which way they were meant to be translated. Just my personal opinion, keep in mind that I am a Catholic and at the Council of Trent I believe my Church declared that the Vulgate, in particular, had been protected from error. So, if I wasn't Catholic and didn't believe that the Church was guided by the Holy Spirit I might be a lot more critical and have a different set of assumptions. However, I think in this case reason, regarding St Jerome's unique time in history much closer to the time and place that Christ lived in than us, and the way languages work regarding Latin being a disambiguating filter between ancient Greek/Hebrew and English, combined with my own faith in the what I believe happened at the Council of Trent, really helps me feel at eas about reading what some might call "the Catholic King James Version"(although I read the 1899 edition which is more like "the Catholic NKJV").

That being said I do read multiple translations of the Bible. My next two favorites include the Orthodox Study Bible and the Revised Standard Version-Catholic Edition. As an Eastern Catholic, I use the OSB because the footnotes have a lot of theology from the Eastern Church Fathers. The OSB uses the NKJV for the New Testament and has a translation of the Greek Septuagint for the Old Testament. The Revised Standard Version I use is actually the Second Catholic Edition and is known as the Ignatius Bible, it comes from a more modern translation of the original Greek and Hebrew, and was the first English Bible translation in history to utilize the Dead Sea Scrolls. In addition to the three I've mentioned, I have also heard and read the Catholic New American Bible(translated from Greek and Hebrew sources around 1970) my whole life as this is the standard version authorized for readings during services at the majority of Catholic churches in the United States, and although it is not my favorite translation I still read it occasionally for balance. Since my family was historically Southern Baptist, Methodist, and Seventh-Day Adventist, I even have some old King James family Bibles that I read some times that are pretty cool.

[swong]

Clear and compassionate. I'm glad you aren't dismissive of other traditions. As a semi-evangelical right now this makes me want to study up on apocrypha

[josephmckinney]

Your kids should do more crafts for your videos. As always, it’s great learning from your tubes.

[applehole]

How do you not have a millions subscribers. You're content is at such a high standard and is so educational. God Bless

[Paldasan]

Really good video, very clear. Love the editing, your use of images and overlays are always helpful. Please thank your kids from us (because I know you would have already thanked them from you) for a stellar job with their books and scrolls.

[gideonjudges]

Thanks for being pretty fair with the history/the differences. I would point out three important things:
1. While the Threefold Structure of the Hebrew Canon was talked about around when you had mentioned (earliest reference comes from the intro attached to Sirach [written by the author, Yeshua ben Sira's grandson--who called them the Law, the Prophets, and "the Others"]), it was fuzzy as to which books belonged to the different collections. As you mentioned, the Samaritans only accepted the Law, but then you also have groups like the Saducees who regarded only the Law as Scripture (and then disputing with other groups about doctrines seeming to be only found in the Prophets/Writings--like the Resurrection. In the scene where Jesus is confronted by the Saducees about the situation from the Book of Tobit [one woman, married to seven husbands who died before children], He argues for the Resurrection only with the books that they actually held, the Law, rather than something like Daniel [or just straight defending Tobit], Matt. 22) Or the Essenes/the Qumran Community--more than just the current Hebrew Canon, but with Tobit, Sirach, the LXX Jeremiah [shorter Hebrew version which in Greek is combined with Lamentations, Baruch, and the Letter of Jeremiah], and apparently not accepting Esther. Or looking at the debates about the canon in the Mishnah and the Talmud--there were questions about Esther, Song of Songs, and Sirach all the way into the 300s/400s AD among the Jews (with Sirach being quoted as Scripture several times in the Talmud). The way Jesus described it was telling "The Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms"--it was not yet a set in stone collection of writings (more than just Psalms, but it still wasn't "We know exactly which XYZ books 'the Writings' refer to")

2. The Council of Jamnia was posited by a scholar in the 1870s, but scholars since the 1960s looking at the evidence say that it's almost impossible for it to have actually happened. The Jewish Canon was actually finalized around the same time as the Church was finalizing its OT--late 300s early 400s (specifically Pope St. Innocent I's letter in answer to the Bishop of Toulouse asking a question about St. Jerome's rejection of the deuteros, in 411)

3. It is a little unclear which Zechariah Jesus is referring to in the Abel to Zechariah reference. In Matthew, he is called "Zechariah son of Barachiah" (23.35) The Zechariah in 2 Chronicles 24 is called "Zechariah son of Yehodiah." The Zachariah Jesus mentioned may have been the author of the Book of Zechariah (son of Berechiah son of Iddo) or (as one late first century tradition had it) Zechariah the Father of John the Baptist--but He specifically cannot be referencing the Zechariah in 2 Chronicles.

[DrewShrock]

These videos are such a blessing. I was raised in a Christian home and went to Christian school and even Christian college so I already know (or have known at one point) most of this information but the reminder and the format is so interesting and entertaining. Thanks so much for your hard work. It’s almost like taking a college class again! =]

[themiddlecase]

Every time you say "Old Testament canon" all I can think of is a cannon firing slushies off the wall of Jericho.

[nasugbubatangas]

As a Catholic, I really enjoy watching your videos. Very informative and very scientific. I mean, when we are talking like this, we show the facts as facts and we consider that some people may not agree with us because they come from different backgrount.

Thanks, Mat. I hope to see more videos like this one.

[LaFedelaIglesia]

30:44 "In terms of direct quotation"?? If we use this argument we would have to leave outside of the Bible these books as well:

Judges
Ruth
Ezra
Esther
Ecclesiastes
Song of Solomon
Lamentations
Obadiah
Jonah
Zephaniah

16:12 You also mentioned Jesus "fixing" the OT canon by virtue of mentioning the Martyrdom of Zachariah which took place place around 540 B.C. (implying that he was the last OT inspired prophet, thus rejecting the Deuterocanonical books ). Jesus himself tells us that the period of the OT prophets reaches until John the Baptist around 30 A.D. "The law and the prophets were UNTIL John" (Lk. 16: 16). Notice how Jesus applies the term "Law and Prophets" not until Zachariah (540 B.C.) but until John the Baptist (30 A.D.).

**NOTE: Deuterocanonical wouldn't be an extra 4th category (as displayed on screen) because they were part of the Wisdom, Poetic, and Historical literature which in turn is part of the traditional tripartite (sometimes bipartite i.e. Lk 16: 16) Jewish term**

I think your analysis reflects more than the Old Testament (for Christians), the Hebrew Bible (for Jews), the TANAKH (Masoretic Text) which came into light around the IX century.

Keep in mind that the "Hebrew Bible" (39 books) utilized by Rabbinic Judaism is not what the Jews in Jesus' times utilized but the Masoretic Text (around the 900's A.D.) . The 7 books rejected by Protestantism always were part of the Christian Bible, even St. Jerome who after spending some time with the Rabbinic school leaders in Palestine expressed doubts about them, nevertheless accepted the final decision of the Church (as opposed to the Rabbinical views). Finally, even in the Talmud the book of Wisdom is quoted as Scripture.