The Hebrew Canon Vs the Greek Septuagint

The debate between the Hebrew Canon and the Greek Septuagint is one of the most consequential theological battles in history. It determined which books made it into the Old Testament, and is the reason Catholic and Protestant Bibles today have a different number of books.

Here is a summary of the conflict, the key players, and the lasting result.

1. The Tale of Two Bibles

To understand the debate, you have to understand that by the time of Jesus, there were essentially two versions of the "Old Testament" circulating:

• The Hebrew Canon (Palestinian Canon): Used by Jews in Judea/Palestine. It was written in Hebrew and was generally shorter. It evolved into the modern Jewish Tanakh.   

• The Septuagint (Alexandrian Canon): A Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures produced in Alexandria, Egypt (c. 250 BC) for Jews who no longer spoke Hebrew. 

  • The Difference: The Septuagint contained 7 extra books (plus additions to Daniel and Esther) that were not in the Hebrew version. These are now called the Deuterocanon (by Catholics) or Apocrypha (by Protestants).  

2. The Early Church Context

The first Christians (including the Apostles) primarily used the Septuagint because they wrote in Greek. When the New Testament quotes the Old Testament, roughly 80% of the citations are from the Septuagint, not the Hebrew text.  

However, as the split between Jews and Christians grew, Jewish leaders (around 90 AD, possibly at the "Council of Jamnia") rejected the Septuagint and the extra books, solidifying the shorter Hebrew canon. This forced the Church to decide: Do we follow the Jewish decision or keep the books the Apostles used?

3. The "Main Event": Jerome vs. Augustine

The debate reached its peak in the late 4th century between two titans of the Church: St. Jerome and St. Augustine.  

St. Jerome: The "Hebrew Truth" (Hebraica Veritas)

Jerome was commissioned to translate the Bible into Latin (the Vulgate). He moved to Bethlehem, learned Hebrew, and was shocked to find that the "extra books" in the Christian Bible were not in the Jewish Bible.  

• His Argument: He believed the Church should only accept books that were found in the original Hebrew "truth." He argued that if the Jews (the guardians of the OT) didn't accept them, neither should Christians.

• His Label: He was the first to call these extra books "Apocrypha" (hidden) and argued they should be read for history but not used to establish doctrine.

St. Augustine: The Authority of Usage

Augustine, the Bishop of Hippo, vehemently disagreed with Jerome.  

• His Argument: He argued that the Septuagint was inspired by God for the Gentiles. He pointed out that the Apostles used it and that the universal Church had been reading these books as scripture for centuries. He felt that removing them would sever the link between the Church and the Apostolic tradition.  

• The "Language Barrier": He also worried that if Jerome translated from a Hebrew text that no one else could read, it would cause confusion when Christians argued with Jews or Greeks.

4. The Result: Augustine Wins (Initially)

The Church Councils of Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage (397 AD) sided with Augustine.  

• They ratified the longer canon (including the 7 extra books: Tobit, Judith, Baruch, Sirach, Wisdom, 1 & 2 Maccabees).   

• Jerome submitted to the Church's decision and included the books in his Latin Vulgate, though he left grumpy "prologues" attached to them reminding readers they weren't in the Hebrew.  

5. The Rematch: The Reformation

For over 1,000 years, the West followed Augustine's view. But in the 16th century, Martin Luther revived Jerome's arguments.   

• Luther needed to debate Catholic opponents on doctrines like Purgatory, which were supported by the "extra books" (specifically 2 Maccabees).

• By adopting Jerome's "Hebrew Canon" standard, Luther could dismiss those books as non-scriptural "Apocrypha."

• The Split: This created the modern divide:

  • Protestant Bibles follow the Hebrew Canon (39 OT books).   

  • Catholic/Orthodox Bibles follow the Septuagint/Augustinian tradition (46+ OT books).  

  • Summary of the differences:

  • Feature	Hebrew Canon (Jerome/Protestant)	Septuagint (Augustine/Catholic/Orthodox)
    Language	Hebrew	Greek
    Scope	Shorter (39 Books)	Longer (46+ Books)
    Key Argument	"Go back to the original source."	"Use what the Apostles used."
    Status of Extra Books	Apocrypha: Useful but not Scripture.	Deuterocanon: Fully Scripture.
    Champion	St. Jerome (4th Century)	St. Augustine (4th Century)

An Outline on the Formation of the Canon of Scripture

The Bible was not "created" or imposed by a church council. Instead, the list of books was gradually recognized by the early Christian community. The church did not make the books authoritative; it simply acknowledged the authority the books already possessed because of their apostolic origins.

Key Phases of Formation

1. The Old Testament (The Foundation)

• Early Christians inherited the Jewish Scriptures (The Law, Prophets, and Writings).

• Jesus and the Apostles treated these books as the undisputed Word of God.

• The Debate: While there was agreement on the core books, there was a long-standing variation between the Hebrew Canon (shorter) and the Greek Septuagint (which included the "Apocrypha" or Deuterocanon). 

2. The New Testament "Core" (c. 50–130 AD)

• Very early on, two collections were circulating and universally accepted:

  • The Four Gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were the only recognized accounts of Jesus by the mid-2nd century.

  • The Corpus Paulinum: A collection of Paul's letters was circulating as a unit by the early 2nd century.

3. The External "Push" (Marcion)

• A major catalyst for defining the list was the heretic Marcion (c. 140 AD).

• Marcion rejected the Old Testament and created his own "canon" consisting only of a chopped-up version of Luke and ten of Paul’s letters.

• The Result: The Church was forced to formally list the books it did accept to protect them from being cut or added to by heretics.

4. The Criteria for Acceptance

When deciding which books belonged in the New Testament, the early church used three main tests:

1. Apostolic Authority: Was it written by an Apostle or a close associate (e.g., Mark with Peter, Luke with Paul)?

2. Orthodoxy (Rule of Faith): Did the teaching match the standard beliefs passed down by the Apostles?

3. Catholicity (Usage): Was the book widely read and used by churches across the different regions (Rome, Asia Minor, Africa)?

The Final Consensus

• The "Disputed" Books: For a few centuries, books like Hebrews, Revelation, James, and 2 Peter were debated (the "Antilegomena").

• Resolution: By the 4th Century, the list stabilized. Athanasius of Alexandria provided the first list of the exact 27 New Testament books we use today in his Festal Letter of 367 AD, and later councils (like Carthage in 397 AD) ratified this consensus.

The Muratorian Fragment

The Muratorian Canon (also known as the Muratorian Fragment) is important primarily because it is the oldest known list of New Testament books.

Dated to around 170–200 AD, it provides a unique historical snapshot of the Bible before it was officially finalized. Its significance lies in what it tells us about how early Christians decided which books belonged in the Bible and which did not.

Here is a breakdown of why it is historically and theologically significant:

1. It Proves the "Core" Bible Existed Early

A common misconception is that the New Testament was created by a church council (like the Council of Nicaea) in the 4th century. The Muratorian Canon debunks this by showing that the "core" of the New Testament was already recognized and functioning as scripture nearly 200 years earlier.

• The Consensus: By AD 200, the church had already accepted the four Gospels, Acts, and all 13 of Paul's letters as authoritative.

• The Takeaway: The later councils didn't invent the Bible; they mostly ratified what the church had already been using for centuries.

2. It Shows the Church Fighting Heresy

The list was not written in a vacuum; it was likely a response to heretics, particularly Marcion, who tried to create his own edited version of the Bible (removing the Old Testament and most of the New).

• The Muratorian Canon explicitly rejects writings by Marcion and Gnostic groups.\

• It demonstrates that the early church defined the canon not just to say "what we read," but to draw a protective line against false

Most scholars agree that the original Muratorian Canon dates to the late 2nd century (c. 170–200 AD) primarily due to a specific internal reference to the bishop of Rome, Pius I.  While a minority of scholars have argued for a 4th-century date, the consensus remains with the earlier dating for several historical and textual reasons.

Here is a breakdown of why the late 2nd-century date is the dominant scholarly view.

1. The "Smoking Gun": The Reference to Pius I

The strongest argument for the 2nd-century date is a specific historical claim found within the text regarding the Shepherd of Hermas (an early Christian writing). The fragment states:

"But Hermas wrote the Shepherd very recently, in our times, in the city of Rome, while bishop Pius, his brother, was occupying the chair of the church of the city of Rome."

Note that Pius I was the Bishop of Rome (Pope) roughly from 140 to 155 AD.

The Implication: For an author to describe Pius's term as "very recently, in our times," they must be writing shortly after that period. This naturally places the composition of the document in the latter half of the 2nd century (c. 170–180 AD), likely within living memory of Pius's bishopric.

2. The Historical Context: Addressing 2nd-Century Heresies

The document appears to be written defensively against specific heresies that were most dangerous and prominent in the 2nd century, rather than the 4th.

Marcionism: The fragment explicitly rejects the writings of Marcion, a 2nd-century heretic who rejected the Old Testament and much of the New Testament. The fragment’s emphasis on accepting four Gospels (rather than Marcion's one mutilated Luke) and the connection between the Old and New Testaments fits the anti-Marcionite struggles of that era.

Montanism: The text stresses that the number of prophets is "complete," which scholars interpret as a rebuttal to Montanism (the "New Prophecy"), a movement that claimed new divine revelation was continuing through its own prophets in the late 2nd century.

Gnosticism: It mentions and rejects writings by Gnostic leaders like Valentinus and Basilides, who were active in the mid-to-late 2nd century.

3. The State of the Canon

The list of books itself represents a "primitive" or transitional stage of the New Testament canon that fits the 2nd century better than the 4th because it's a bit messy.  By the 4th century (e.g., the Council of Carthage or Athanasius's list in 367 AD), the New Testament canon was largely stabilized at 27 books. The Muratorian Canon, however, accepts the Apocalypse of Peter (later rejected) and excludes standard books like Hebrews, James, and 1 Peter.

Western/Roman Bias: The list reflects the specific usage of the church in Rome during the 2nd century. For example, it accepts the Wisdom of Solomon (often used by Roman Christians then) but is silent on books more popular in the East. 

Feature	Western Church	Eastern Church
New Testament Focus	Strong focus on Revelation; doubted Hebrews.	Strong focus on Hebrews; doubted Revelation.
Old Testament Basis	Shifted toward Hebrew Canon (Jerome), but kept Apocrypha via Augustine.	Strict adherence to Septuagint (Greek), including all Apocrypha.
Rejected "Fringe" Books	Shepherd of Hermas (rejected earlier).	1 Clement, Barnabas, Didache (used longer).

4. Linguistic Evidence

Although the physical manuscript we have is a sloppy Latin copy from the 7th or 8th century, philological analysis suggests it is a translation of an earlier Greek original.

The Christian church in Rome spoke primarily Greek until the mid-3rd century. If the document were a 4th-century Latin original, it would likely be written in better Latin. The poor quality of the Latin suggests a "literal" and clumsy translation from Greek, consistent with a 2nd-century.

The "Sloppy Scribe" & Muratorian Fragment

• The specific details about the 8th-century scribe and his errors come from the physical analysis of the manuscript itself (Codex Ambrosianus I 101 sup), largely popularized by Bruce Metzger.
  
  The "30 Errors" Proof: This specific claim comes from an analysis of the codex where the scribe accidentally copied a passage from St. Ambrose (De Abraham) twice.

  • Source: Bruce Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament. Metzger (and scholars like Samuel P. Tregelles) compared the two identical passages and found that the scribe made roughly 30 mistakes in just 30 lines (misspellings, dropped words, nonsense grammar), proving he was likely illiterate in the language he was copying.

• The "Barbarous Latin": The description of the text as "rustic" or "vulgar" Latin is the standard academic view, noting that it breaks the rules of classical Latin grammar (e.g., wrong case endings), which suggests it was a poor translation from a Greek original.

The "Seven Churches" Principle

The core of this argument relies on a very specific, somewhat odd theological claim found in the Muratorian Fragment.

The Fragment tries to explain why the Apostle Paul wrote letters to exactly seven specific churches (Corinthians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Galatians, Thessalonians, Romans). The author argues that Paul did this to mimic the Apostle John, who wrote to seven churches in the Book of Revelation. By writing to "seven," they were symbolically writing to the "universal" (whole) church.

The Muratorian Fragment says: "...the blessed Apostle Paul, following the rule of his predecessor John, writes to no more than seven churches by name..."

Chromatius of Aquileia (c. 398–407 AD) says: "...that there is one church diffused throughout the whole earth is shown by this sevenfold writing... following the example of his predecessor John, [Paul] writes to no more than seven churches by name..."

2. The Trap for the 4th-Century Theory

This parallel creates a logical trap for scholars who argue the Muratorian Fragment was written in the late 4th century (c. 375 AD).

A. The Direction of Borrowing The textual similarities are so close (specifically the phrase "following the rule/example of his predecessor John") that one author clearly copied the other. Scholars agree that Chromatius is the one borrowing, because he is summarizing a tradition that the Muratorian Fragment is explaining in detail.

B. The "Victorinus" Connection (The real nail in the coffin) While Chromatius writing in ~400 AD is bad for a theory that dates the Fragment to ~375 AD (because it implies instant, authoritative acceptance of a "new" document), the evidence goes back even further.

Scholars have noted that Victorinus of Pettau, a bishop who died in 304 AD, also uses this same "Seven Churches" argument in his commentary on the Apocalypse.

If Victorinus (c. 300 AD) knew this specific argument, the Muratorian Fragment (the source of the argument) must exist before 300 AD. This renders the "Late Date" theory (that it was written in the East around 375 AD) chronologically impossible.

3. Why this reinforces the 2nd-Century Date

If the text existed before 300 AD (proven by Victorinus) and was widely enough known to be quoted as authoritative tradition by Italian bishops like Chromatius in 400 AD, it aligns perfectly with the document's own internal claim—that it was written in the late 2nd century (c. 170–200 AD) near the time of Pius I. origin.

Summary Table: The Timeline Problem

Date	Event	Implication
c 170 -200 AD	Traditional Date of Muratorian Fragment	Fits internal evidence (Pius I)
C 304 AD	Victorinus of Pettau dies - The Fragment must exist by now.	He uses the Fragment's "Seven Churches" logic.
C 375 AD	Hypothetical "Late Date" Origin	Impossible: You can't write a text in 375 that Victorinus quoted in 300.

The information provided in our conversation is based on the scholarly consensus of New Testament textual criticism and Church history. Here are the specific primary sources (ancient texts) and secondary sources (modern scholars) that back up the information provided:

1. The "Sloppy Scribe" & Muratorian Fragment

The specific details about the 8th-century scribe and his errors come from the physical analysis of the manuscript itself (Codex Ambrosianus I 101 sup), largely popularized by Bruce Metzger.

• The "30 Errors" Proof: This specific claim comes from an analysis of the codex where the scribe accidentally copied a passage from St. Ambrose (De Abraham) twice.

  • Source: Bruce Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament. Metzger (and scholars like Samuel P. Tregelles) compared the two identical passages and found that the scribe made roughly 30 mistakes in just 30 lines (misspellings, dropped words, nonsense grammar), proving he was likely illiterate in the language he was copying.

• The "Barbarous Latin": The description of the text as "rustic" or "vulgar" Latin is the standard academic view, noting that it breaks the rules of classical Latin grammar (e.g., wrong case endings), which suggests it was a poor translation from a Greek original.

2. West vs. East (Hebrews vs. Revelation)

The history of the "Bible trade" between East and West is documented in the writings of the Early Church Fathers themselves.

• The Primary Sources (Ancient Witnesses):

  • Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 325 AD): In his Ecclesiastical History (Book III, Chapter 25), he famously lists the "Antilegomena" (Disputed Books). He notes that Revelation is accepted by some but rejected by others (specifically in the East).

  • St. Jerome (c. 400 AD): Jerome explicitly mentions in a letter to Dardanus (Letter 129) that the "custom of the Latins" (West) rejects Hebrews, while the "Greek churches" accept it, and conversely, the Greeks reject Revelation. He argues that both should be accepted.

• Modern Scholarship:

  • F.F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture: A standard textbook that details how Athanasius (East) and Augustine (West) eventually aligned their lists in the late 4th century.

  • Lee Martin McDonald: A leading scholar on canon formation who emphasizes that the "Bible" was a fluid concept for the first 400 years.

Recommended Reading

If you want to read the books that serve as the "gold standard" for this topic, these are the two most cited works:

1) "The Canon of the New Testament" by Bruce Metzger: This is the definitive academic book on how the books were chosen, containing the detailed analysis of the Muratorian scribe.

2) "The Canon of Scripture" by F.F. Bruce: A slightly more accessible narrative of the same history.

Canon Muratorianus: The Earliest Catalogue of the Books of the New Testament

Canon Muratorianus: The Earliest Catalogue of the Books of the New Testament (1867) is a seminal work by the 19th-century textual critic Samuel Prideaux Tregelles.

This book is historically significant because it was the first major English scholarly attempt to analyze the Muratorian Fragment in depth, and it serves as the primary source for the "incompetent scribe" argument that dominates modern textual criticism of this document.

Here is a summary of the book's key contents and arguments:

1. The Facsimile (The "Visual Proof")

Before this book, most scholars had only seen imperfect transcriptions of the Muratorian Fragment. Tregelles visited the Ambrosian Library in Milan and created a facsimile (an exact tracing/reproduction) of the manuscript.

• Significance: This allowed scholars worldwide to see the actual handwriting and the "barbarous" condition of the text without traveling to Italy.

2. The "Incompetent Scribe" Discovery

This is the book's most lasting contribution. Tregelles proved that the 8th-century scribe who copied the list was exceptionally careless.

• The "Ambrosian Doublet": Tregelles analyzed the same scribe's copy of a passage by St. Ambrose found in the same bound volume. The scribe had accidentally copied the same 30 lines twice.

• The Verdict: When Tregelles compared the two identical passages, he found over 30 errors in 30 lines—variations in spelling, dropped words, and nonsense grammar.

• Conclusion: This proved that the errors in the Muratorian Canon were likely due to the scribe's illiteracy or carelessness.

3. Textual Reconstruction

Tregelles provided a line-by-line analysis of the Latin text, attempting to "heal" the mangled grammar to reveal the original meaning.

• He argued that the text was a translation from Greek (which he attempted to retro-translate) and that the original list dated to the 2nd Century (c. 170 AD), not a later period.

• He defended the view that the fragment represents the "earliest catalogue" of the New Testament, establishing the core of the canon (Gospels, Paul's letters) well before the official councils of the 4th century.

4. Structure of the Book

• Introduction: History of the document's discovery by Ludovico Muratori.

• The Facsimile: A lithographed copy of the manuscript.

• Critical Text: The Latin text with notes on every error and correction.

• Commentary: Tregelles' arguments for why the list is a genuine 2nd-century voice of the Roman church, rejecting the idea that it was a 4th-century forgery.

In short, this is the book that established the academic consensus that the Muratorian Fragment is a 2nd-century list preserved in a very sloppy 8th-century copy.

Muratorian Fragment

Also known as the "Muratorian Canon," the fragment is an ancient manuscript consisting of 85 lines, is a Latin manuscript bound in a roughly 8th-century codex that includes a list of New Testament books; affirming 22 out of the 27 books. Including all four Gospels, the book of Acts, all 13 epistles of Paul, along with Jude, 1 John and 2 John, and Revelation. (3rd John is included but disputed)

While the fragment itself dates from the 7th or 8th century, it contains features suggesting it is a translation from a Greek original written in the late 2nd century (c. 170–200).

 This is remarkably early to have such a comprehensive canon, and thus widespread agreement regarding most of the books of the New Testament by the end of the 2nd century.

It mentions the non-canonical Apocalypse of Peter but testifies to the fact that not everyone was in agreement about its authority. So while there definitely was some disagreement over certain books,  there was also general agreement over most of them.

It references the Shepherd of Hermas as a book that was widely read and appreciated among early Christians but was rejected as Scripture because it was written "very recently in our times."

This counters the claim that someone or some council chose the books of the NT since  as early as the late 2nd century (100 years or so after the last of the Apostles died), there was a core canon that was affirmed by Christians and accepted as Scripture on par with the Old Testament.  It also supports the idea that the NT was written early

See this early canon list
​