OK, so what is the Old Testament? Well, in Greek it was called “he Palaia Diatheke,” which was translated into Latin as Vetus Testamentum, from which we get our English, “Old Testament.” “The Latin rendered testament in English originally came from the Latin for ‘witness’ and from there expanded to mean ‘to make a will’; thus, though it is purported to be synonymous with ‘covenant,’ it has a distinct legal flavoring. Further semantic extensions in English have made the English term more ambiguous.”
The Old Testament can be classified in various ways. For my purposes, let me use a classification found in the fathers, the books and the other books (profound is it not). Today we would say the canonical and the deuterocanonical books. Let me quote from the Catechism of St. Philaret of Moscow to make myself more clear:
31. How many are the books of the Old Testament?
St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Athanasius the Great, and St. John Damascene reckon them at twenty-two, agreeing therein with the Jews, who so reckon them in the original Hebrew tongue. (Athanas. Ep. xxxix. De Test.; J. Damasc. Theol. lib. iv. c. 17.)
32. Why should we attend to the reckoning of the Hebrews?
Because, as the Apostle Paul says, unto them were committed the oracles of God; and the sacred books of the Old Testament have been received from the Hebrew Church of that Testament by the Christian Church of the New. Rom. iii. 2.
33. How do St. Cyril and St. Athanasius enumerate the books of the Old Testament?
As follows: 1, The book of Genesis; 2, Exodus; 3, Leviticus; 4, the book of Numbers; 5, Deuteronomy; 6, the book of Jesus the son of Nun; 7, the book of Judges, and with it, as an appendix, the book of Ruth; 8, the first and second books of Kings, as two parts of one book; 9, the third and fourth books of Kings; 10, the first and second books of Paralipomena; 11, the first book of Esdras, and the second, or, as it is entitled in Greek, the book of Nehemiah; 12, the book of Esther; 13, the book of Job; 14, the Psalms; 15, the Proverbs of Solomon; 16, Ecclesiastes, also by Solomon; 17, the Song of Songs, also by Solomon; 18, the book of the Prophet Isaiah; 19, of Jeremiah; 20, of Ezekiel; 21, of Daniel; 22, of the Twelve Prophets.
34. Why is there no notice taken in this enumeration of the books of the Old Testament of the book of the Wisdom of the son of Sirach, and of certain others?
Because they do not exist in the Hebrew.
35. How are we to regard these last-named books?
Athanasius the Great says that they have been appointed of the Fathers to be read by proselytes who are preparing for admission into the Church.
So, why do Protestants, Roman Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox have a different number of books in their Old Testament? Well, guess what? There is no simple answer to this one. There is little doubt that the early Christians used the Septuagint as their version of the Scriptures. (The Septuagint is a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures from Hebrew into Greek.) In fact, “Of the fuller quotations in the New Testament of the Old, nearly one hundred agree with the modern form of the Septuagint and six agree with the Hebrew text. Of the Scriptures in Aramaic found in the caves of the Dead Sea Scrolls, more of them concur with the Septuagint than with the Hebrew text. Finally, “The Septuagint order for the Old Testament is evident in the earliest Christian Bibles (5th century).”
Having said that, after that, life becomes more difficult. Though it is clear that the Septuagint version is the preferred version, it is also clear that some of the earliest Fathers in the East listed only the twenty-two books above as books to be read in Church. OK, so how did the other books also become included? Well, just because the earliest Eastern Fathers did not list them, does not mean that they ignored them. The deuterocanonical books were indeed part of the Septuagint. As the catechism points out, St. Athanasius is but one of the Church Fathers who commends them as being worthy of being read. The Fathers, East or West, would also either quote or make allusions to the Deuterocanonical books in order to make various points. Moreover, there are allusions to various of the Deuterocanonical books found in the New Testament. But, most intriguing, the Western Fathers tended to include the Deuterocanonical books in their canon listing. Go here to read some of the list of allusions.
OK, so can you tell us how we got the Old Testament we have? Hmm, well, the answer is “tradition.” Protestants claim that only the books accepted by the Jews may be used in the Old Testament. Roman Catholics did not define their Old Testament until the Council of Trent, and that in reaction to the Protestant declarations. The Eastern Orthodox simply accept the entire Septuagint, although with a somewhat conflicted attitude! Most Orthodox would accept the entire Septuagint as being canonical. However, as can be seen by the Catechism of St. Philaret of Moscow, some Orthodox would have an attitude that is somewhat between Protestant and Roman Catholic. The Greeks use the term “Anagignoskomena” to speak of those books outside the Hebrew “tanakh” but that does not necessarily mean that they are considered non-canonical.
Surprisingly, the Early Church never did quite define the Old Testament. Variation was allowed between East and West. The whole of Christendom used the Deuterocanonical books, but not the same list. And, the Deuterocanonical books were sometimes regarded as Scripture and sometimes regarded with attitudes that were slightly conflicted. The writings of the New Testament quote the Septuagint, quite often, and there are allusions found in the New Testament to the Deuterocanonical books. It is clear that the Early Church Fathers quote them to make moral points, though they are quoted much less often to make doctrinal points.
In fact, the shocker is that no united definition of the Old Testament was ever declared. The New Testament is clear and the same between all who claim the name Christian. But, while we all agree on the same 22 books, there is no clear and united declaration as to what is the Old Testament.
The interesting thing about this is Lutherans have the same conflicted sort of view regarding the Apocrypha as you attribute to the orthodox. Up until the 19th century it was still common to find the Apocrypha in Lutheran Published Bibles. I would say we have regarded them as helpful, but not canonical.
The majority of the Orthodox simply accept the Septuagint in full. However, what made the quote from the St. Philaret Catechism interesting is that it is the most read catechism in the largest Orthodox Church, the Russians. So, any Russians knowledgeable enough to know the controversies would know that even one of their leading saints was conflicted. There is a reason the Lutherans went to the Russians after the Reformations. GRIN.
Another thought I had on this. Reading Kittel on Diatheke. It struck me that he can't he is hard pressed to find basis in Classical Greek for using the word to mean mere covenant. The word almost always meant Testament. And given the laughable reformed attempts to translate that word covenant in Hebrews 8 and 9 I think we ought to stay with Testament.
Remember, I am not arguing that it should always be translated either covenant or testament, but that it needs to be in context. The problem with Kittel is that he is prior to some of the newer research on the Greek. He is still stuck on the idea that we have to look to classical Greek in order to understand the meaning of the word. That is a major mistake because the Septuagint is NOT based on classical Greek meanings but on Hebrew to Greek equivalents, at the time the translation was done. And, having worked in missions with a Wycliffe Bible translator, I can guarantee you that the equivalents are often not exact. Sometimes, there is no equivalent whatsoever, so that a near-related term (or word) has to be chosen and imbued with the meaning of the original language so that almost a “new” word is created out of the old.
Let me give you one example. The Isaiah verse in Hebrew does not say, “a virgin shall bear a child.” Rather, it says, “a young maiden shall bear a child.” When the verse was translated into the Septuagint, the word parthenos was chosen. However, the word used in Hebrew was almah which is simply a maiden rather than bethulah, which is more strictly a virgin. In fact, St. Jerome thus replies to one of his critics, Juvianus: “I know that the Jews are accustomed to meet us with the objection that in Hebrew the word Almah does not mean a Virgin, but a young woman. And, to speak truth, a virgin is properly called Bethulah, but a young woman, or a girl, is not Almah, but Naarah”! (Jerome, Adv. Javianum I, 32; N&PNF, vi, 370.)” In other words, an equivalent was chosen that most closely caught the spirit of the verse. And, while it was assumed that a Hebrew maiden was a virgin, the same could not be said about a classical Greek maiden. Thus, it was safer to pick “parthenos.” Later St. Luke makes it abundantly clear that this was simply not a pregnant maiden but the result of a holy act of God. She was truly parthenos.
In the same way, diatheke was chosen to translate the Hebrew word, “beriyt.” There is no doubt that beriyt in the Old Testament always means covenant. Not only does it mean covenant, but it is used as part of a phrase to “cut a covenant,” or “karat beriyt.” Thus, the idea of sacrifice is the predominant one, not testament. So, why was diatheke chosen instead of syntheke? Remember, the translators would not have been thinking “testament” at all. Well, again, the most likely explanation is that of the close equivalent. Syntheke carries the idea of a covenant between equals. Diatheke, meanwhile, carries the idea more of something for which one party is responsible. Thus, while it did mean last will and testament after 400 BC, this did not mean that it could not be imbued with additional meanings. Thus, for the Septuagint translator, diatheke allows them to say that this is a covenant (remember they were translating beriyt) that is much more of one party than the other. The New Testament writers grabbed that word and realized that testament was precisely one of the facets of covenant that was present in Jesus’ words. Again, it appears that, as with the use of parthenos, the Lord prepared the ground with the Septuagint translators.
“Luther, in his German Bible, displayed amazing insight as he skillfully moved back and forth between Bund (‘covenant’) and ‘Testaments’ in his New Testament. (He did, however, consistently use Bund to translate berith throughout his whole Old Testament.) Luther’s writings ably explain his methodology. Whenever the diatheke was a mere promise, he used Bund, that is, when the context implied that the fulfillment of a ‘covenant’ promise, especially in terms of Jesus’ death and His work as the God-Man, Luther used some form of Testaments.”
Father Ernesto,
The funny thing is that given the context of Almah, it almost always could not be translated as anything but Virgin in the old Testament, and Bethula is the one that most often can be attributed maiden or young girl. Believe me I have done extensive research.
As for covenant verses Testament, Luther does go back and forth quite aptly. And I do understand impregnating words with meaning, but this goes both ways it can be a dangerous walk. Perhaps the translators of the Septuagint were just not aware of the word Syntheke. But I think they were. I think they were actually getting at the heart of what these promises from God were all about. They weren't your run of the mill covenants and business contracts. That could be argued over and over in the Old. But when the New Testament is given "On the night when He was betrayed" and "In my blood" then there is no doubt that this is no mere covenant, but a Testament. Further more he asks nothing of us in it, as a covenant would demand, but promises us forgiveness and gives us our inheritance.
Sorry, but I am going to stay with Kittel on this.
Yes, I see the counter arguments to which you refer. In fact, I fervently hope that I am wrong on the almah argument as that strengthens the prophecy. I do not disagree that there is clearly testament being spoken of. I am not a pure covenantalist. But, I disagree with translating it always as testament. It is the other extreme from translating it always as covenant. Either extreme commits the error of translating according to one’s theology rather than according to linguistic, cultural, and contextual considerations.
Thanks for this post. I've been thinking about the Old Testament canon for a while. It is a bit confusing and I appreciate your explanation. Happy Christmastide!
I LOVE WHAT YOU ARE DOING !! I GET VERY EXCITED WHEN I THINK ABOUT THE HEBREW BIBLE IN TRUE ENGLISH. NOT LIKE SOME OF THESE TRANSLATIONS THAT CHANGE THE WHOLE MEANING OF WHAT THE FATHER WAS SAYING !!
THANK YOU