Bible Discussion Thread

Dear Amy

There are almost 3 different types of the Old Testament. The older is what is known as the Septuagint Bible. That is a translation into the Greek language of the Hebrew Scriptures done sometime during the 3rd centuary BC, written for the Greek speaking Jews living around the Mediterranean Sea at that time. There is the one that Hebrews use theselves that is called the Masoretic text. It is what the Jews canonised to be the Bible. That was finalized roughly the 4-5th centuary AD. There is another form not that much known, the "Dead see Scrolls'. Those are scrolls that were found in Israel sometime in the early 20th centuary and they originate from 300 BC to 300 AD. By examining them scientists found out that a part of them was the same as the Masoretic text, another part as the Septuagint text and the rest didnt coincide with either texts. That, they say, probably means that during Jesus's time things were a bit fluid. There were many verses of the OT around at that time, similar to one another but not the same.

Now the Catholic church, like the Eastern Orthodox church have included in the OT some books extra of the Masoritic text called the Apocrypha. Jews theselves rejected those books as not divinely inspired.

There are also some other books that both Christians and Jews rejected. We can find reference of 2 of them in Jude's epistole. That confirms that things were as I said a bit fluid during ancient times. Same happened with the New Testament during the first 3 centuaries AD untill the Gospel was finally canonised. So which OT is the right one. I would say all 3 of them since their differences are not that important. I would exclude though the Apocrypha and not canonised texts. On internet you can find a lot of information about this topic.

Now about the Vatican hidding some books somewhere, I think those claims can not be serious.

GBU