Related Content

All Scripture Is Inspired by God

Thoughts on the Old Testament Canon

by Joel Kalvesmaki

All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. (II Tim 3:16)

What Scriptures did St. Paul have in mind when he wrote the above to St. Timothy? Was he referring to the 66 books making up the Bible Evangelicals read today? What exactly did Paul mean by "all?"

I was personally confident of the Protestant canon of the Old Testament, until I examined the evidence behind it. What I discovered I found uncomfortable. And yet it brought me into a deeper and richer relationship with Jesus Christ. If you are a Christian who finds theological correction difficult, then these essays will only annoy you. But if your heart aches to know and indwell the Christian faith, then this might be the start of something new and exciting in your relationship with God.

In this first of two essays we will look closer at the canon of Scriptures which the Apostles read and used and contrast that with popular assumptions many Evangelicals make today. In the second essay, "Do Not Add to His Words," we will concentrate on the canon of the New Testament and consider the authority in Christianity.

+ + +

In his letter to St. Timothy, St. Paul is not referring to the New Testament. This should be obvious since, after all, books such as Acts and Revelation had not yet been written. Even what had been written was still beginning the process of circulation in various churches, starting with those in the basin of the Aegean Sea. However, as Evangelicals, we generally want this passage to include the New Testament since it is one of the few verses that seem to directly support our teaching on the inspiration of the Bible.

Regardless, St. Paul undoubtedly had the Old Testament in mind as he wrote this passage. It was the Old Testament which was read in the synagogue and was instrumental in the "training in righteousness" of Sts. Paul, Timothy and many other Christians from the Church of the first century. But, more importantly, Sts. Paul and Timothy used the Septuagint (LXX), the Greek translation of the Old Testament composed in the third century before Christ.

The Origin of the Septuagint

"The what...?" As Evangelicals many of us have never heard of the LXX except in a passing reference from educated preachers or teachers. And those of us who have heard of the LXX rarely give it a second thought. But so important is the LXX for our faith that many aspects of the message of the New Testament cannot be sufficiently grasped without it.

The LXX was recognized as the authoritative Greek translation of the Jewish Scriptures and was read in the synagogues and churches of the Hellenistic world. Most Old Testament quotations in the New Testament are based on the LXX, not the Hebrew. Of particular interest is Paul's use of the LXX since, as a student of Gamaliel, he would have had ample knowledge of the difference between the Greek and Hebrew texts.

Most scholars are skeptical of the fabulous details which developed around the story of the translation of the LXX, but the main historical facts have been accepted. This quotation, from an anonymous Christian of the second or third century, not only relates the story, but reflects the popular opinion of early Christians on the subject.

But if any one says that the writings of Moses and of the rest of the prophets were also written in the Greek character, let him read profane histories, and know that Ptolemy, king of Egypt, when he had built the library in Alexandria, and by gathering books from every quarter had filled it, then learnt that very ancient histories written in Hebrew happened to be carefully preserved; and wishing to know their contents, he sent for seventy wise men from Jerusalem, who were acquainted with both the Greek and Hebrew language, and appointed them to translate the books; and that in freedom from all disturbance they might the more speedily complete the translation, he ordered that there should be constructed, not in the city itself, but seven stadia off (where the Pharos was built), as many little cots as there were translators, so that each by himself might complete his own translation; and enjoined upon those officers who were appointed to this duty, to afford them all attendance, but to prevent communication with one another, in order that the accuracy of the translation might be discernible even by their agreement.

And when he ascertained that the seventy men had not only given the same meaning, but had employed the same words, and had failed in agreement with one another not even to the extent of one word, but had written the same things, and concerning the same things, he was struck with amazement, and believed that the translation had been written by divine power, and perceived that the men were worthy of all honor, as beloved of God; and with many gifts ordered them to return to their own country. And having, as was natural, marvelled at the books, and concluded them to be divine, he consecrated them in that library. These things, ye men of Greece, are no fable, nor do we narrate fictions; but we ourselves having been in Alexandria, saw the remains of the little cots at the Pharos still preserved, and having heard these things from the inhabitants, who had received them as part of their country's tradition, we now tell to you what you can also learn from others, and specially from those wise and esteemed men who have written of these things, Philo and Josephus, and many others. (Pseudo-Justin, Hor. Greeks 13)

Is the Septuagint basically the same as our Old Testament?

In our popular literature apologists claim that the LXX is very close to the Hebrew text we have today. This claim aims at validating modern Western translations of the Bible, which are based on the Hebrew text. Is this true? And how close is close?

It is difficult for one to really grasp the uniqueness of the LXX until studying the text and comparing it with modern translations. When I first started to read the LXX, many things surprised me. Working through the Pentateuch, I made note of the many significant differences between the Hebrew and the Greek. God's curse on Cain is a case in point.


Hebrew (AV)

Hast thou not sinned if thou hast brought it rightly, but not rightly divided it? Be still, to thee shall be his submission, and thou shalt rule over him. If sthou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? And if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

Likewise, the genealogy from Adam to Noah in the LXX places the Deluge 2242 years after Creation. But our modern translations based on the Hebrew text indicate the time span to be 1656 years. This difference springs from the LXX stating that the birth of the first-born sons of various patriarchs happened later in their life than that reported by the Hebrew text.

The last ten chapters of Exodus and the entire book of Jeremiah contain a number of different passages where verses are either omitted, paraphrased, or completely rearranged. Sometimes the Hebrew has more text than the LXX and sometimes vice versa.

In I Kings 12-14, the events surrounding the life of King Jeroboam are arranged in a different order and include a story not reported in the Hebrew text of how he came to marry Ano, the eldest sister of the wife of Susakim, the current pharaoh.

These are four of the many differences between the LXX and the Hebrew. Having been led to believe the text was basically the same I was quite disappointed. For instance, Evidence that Demands a Verdict, by Josh McDowell calls the LXX "very close" to the Massoretic. How close is close? Had Mr. McDowell really read the LXX?

The Role of the Septuagint in the New Testament

The role of the LXX in the New Testament and the early Church is a crucial help in understanding what Paul might have meant by "all Scripture." As previously mentioned, this is the version most often quoted in the New Testament. And in some cases the claims of the New Testament theologically depend on the peculiarities of the LXX.

For instance, Hebrews 10:5 quotes Psalm 40:6 as a messianic prophecy:

Therefore, when He comes into the world, He says, "sacrifice and offering Thou hast not desired, but a body Thou hast prepared for Me."

The author has directly quoted from the LXX Psalter. A quick turn to our modern Bibles will confirm that the Hebrew text reads:

Sacrifice and meal offering Thou hast not desired; My ears Thou hast opened.

If we follow this latter reading, the author of Hebrews has not only misquoted the passage, but has made it an important plank of his argument. Only the rendering of the LXX justifies this as a Messianic passage. Did the author of Hebrews get it wrong? Was it an inspired mistake?

In Acts 7:14 St. Stephen relates the story of the Israelite nation and refers to 75 people who traveled from Canaan to Egypt in the emigration of Jacob's family. This is not what Genesis 46 states in our Bibles, where it catalogues 70 sojourners. But the LXX lists 75 people, confirming St. Stephen's account, with the differences accounted for by the grand- and great-grandchildren of Joseph (Gen 46:20-22).

Most importantly, it is only in the LXX that Isaiah's prophecy of the Virgin Birth makes its bold appearance (Is 7:14). The Hebrew text uses the word "woman" ("marah") instead of "virgin" ("parthenos"). In their earliest confrontations with Christians, the Jews objected most strongly to this verse being used to support of Jesus' Messiahship. The Jews claimed that Isaiah was prophesying of King Hezekiah and he knew nothing of a miraculous virgin birth. The Septuagint, they said, had been tampered with. The early Christians responded by claiming that it was not they, but the Jews who had cut passages out of the Hebrew text out of envy. (Justin Martyr, Trypho, 71-73)

If we agree with the ancient Jews that the LXX translation was a faulty translation, then why is this inferior text part of Holy, Inspired Scripture? If we follow the usage of the New Testament, could it not be said that the LXX was considered trustworthy and even preferred by the Apostles? This is not out of harmony with the testimony of the Early Church in the Greek speaking world, which, as partly evidenced by the earlier patristic quotation, regarded it as a sound and inspired translation.

As a Bible believing Christian, facing this dilemma was not easy. I felt that by trying to honestly grapple with textual issues, I was questioning the authority of God's Word. This is not at all what I intended. I simply wanted integrity in my Christian faith. With time, as I struggled through some of these facts, I realized I needed to come to Scripture on its own terms, not on my expectations as a twentieth century Westerner. This desire for integrity aided me as I swallowed hard and proceeded to study the canon of the Old Testament.

What Is in the Septuagint?

All Scripture is inspired and, in both St. Paul and St. Timothy's mind, that meant the LXX. So much is clear. But the LXX included the books we know today as the Apocrypha.

The earliest copies of the Greek Bible we possess, such as the Codex Alexandrinus and Codex Siniaticus (4-5th centuries) include the Apocrypha. And it is not placed in a separate section in the back of the codex but is rather interspersed by book according to literature type—the historical books with Kings and Chronicles, the wisdom literature with Proverbs and the Song of Solomon, and so forth.

These books were used by the Hellenic Jewish communities and certain Palestinian Jewish groups such as the Essenes. The Apocrypha retained respect in various Jewish communities until around thirty years after Paul's death when the Pharisees, in the council of Jamnia, and discussed a number of issues, among which was the Jewish canon. Although the influence of this council is disputed, what is clear is that in its aftermath the Apocrypha was decidedly rejected by the Pharisees, who then proceeded to dominate Judaism.

It seems unusual that most Evangelical Christians today embrace Jamnia as defining their canon. After all, the men at this council were not Christians. Rather they were vehemently opposed to Christ and the Apostles and intended to expunge it from Jewish life. The early Christians paid no heed to the council of Jamnia and continued to use the Apocrypha, and with good reason. Read, for instance, what is written in the book of Wisdom:

Let us beset the just one, because he is obnoxious to us; he sets himself against our doings, Reproaches us for transgressions of the law and charges us with violations of our training. He professes to have knowledge of God and styles himself a child of the Lord. To us he is the censure of our thoughts; merely to see him is a hardship for us, Because his life is not like other men's, and different are his ways. He judges us debased; he holds aloof from our paths as from things impure. He calls blest the destiny of the just and boasts that God is his Father.

Let us see whether his words be true; let us find out what will happen to him. For if the just one be the son of God, he will defend him and deliver him from the hand of his foes. With revilement and torture let us put him to the test that we may have proof of his gentleness and try his patience. Let us condemn him to a shameful death; for according to his own words, God will take care of him. (Wisdom 2:12-20)

Is such a powerful Messianic passage, written before Christ, merely a coincidence? Or could the Apocrypha be inspired Scripture?

The Apocrypha Cannot be Inspired Because...

What? The Apocrypha inspired? Never! As Evangelicals we have been raised with the understanding that there are only 39 books of the Old Testament, unique and unlike any other. No Christian could seriously believe in the Apocrypha! This attitude is competently demonstrated by Geisler and Nix who, in their book From God to Us, give reasons why the Apocrypha cannot be accepted. Because...

...of the testimony of Jesus and the New Testament writers

It is true there is no direct quotation in the New Testament from the Apocrypha. But, before smugly moving on, we should recognize that there are allusions to and use of the Apocrypha.

For instance, when the Sadducees came to Jesus to challenge him on the issue of the Resurrection (Mt 22:23-33), they refer to seven brothers among them who, in turn, married the same woman, dying before having children. This story is neither ludicrous nor an invention. Rather, it is a speculative question probably based on the situation of Sarah in Tobit (Tob 3:7-17). She found herself facing perpetual virginity as seven marriages had resulted in death, each husband dying on the night of their marriage. "In the resurrection therefore whose wife of the seven shall she be?" asked the Sadducees regarding Sarah's plight.

Jesus' parable of the widow and the uncaring judge (Lk 18:1-8) is a variation of a set of proverbs found in the Wisdom of Sirach (Ecclus 35:13-15).

St. Paul makes numerous allusions to the wisdom and power of God which have powerful affinity with the Book of Wisdom, the theology of which is strongly Christian. One fine example of this is found in Romans:

Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all mean, because all sinned. (Rom 5:12)

This understanding of the Fall does not depend solely on the passage in Genesis, which does not directly blame the existence of sin today on Adam's transgression. It is there, but St. Paul's exegesis of this passage is informed by Wisdom:

But by the envy of the devil, death entered the world, and they who are in his possession experience it. (Wis 2:24)

It is true that the authors do not call these books inspired. But what books do the NT authors declare to be inspired? The argument can work both ways. There are seventeen books the New Testament does not quote—Joshua, Judges, Ezekiel, Ezra/Nehemiah and Chronicles to name but a few. Are these then dubious? The nearest citation to the Chronicles is, with a stretch of details, a reference by Jesus to the killing of a certain Zechariah (Mt 23:35, Lk 11:51). Does an indirect reference like this really establish that the Chronicles are inspired? In fact, the Bible doesn't specifically call any book inspired, aside from the passage we are looking at in II Timothy. Should we?

Possibly we need to accept that when the NT cites a book or refers to a prophet of Jehovah the authors automatically assume spiritual authority in the writing, on the part of both themselves and their audience.

...of the testimony of early Christian synods

The purpose of local synods, before the advent of the ecumenical councils, was to decide regional disputes, not to establish the fundamental doctrines of the faith. Formulating a canon of Scripture was never up for discussion. However, if it had been, the Apocryphal books would have certainly received a warm response. Here are excerpts from the acts of two early local synods.

...Holy Scripture meets and warns us, saying...."And fear not the words of a sinful man, for his glory shall be dung and worms. Today he is lifted up, and tomorrow he shall not be found, because he is turned into his earth, and his thought shall perish (I Mac 2:62,63)." Cyprian, Ep. 14, 2nd council of Carthage, AD 252, (ANF V:339)

Quietus of Baruch said: We who live by faith ought to obey with careful observance those things which before have been foretold for our instruction. For it is written in Solomon: "He that is baptized from the dead, (and again toucheth the dead,) what availeth his washing (Ecclus 34:25)?" 7th council of Carthage, AD 256, (ANF V:568)

...of the testimony of the great Fathers of the early church

Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem and Athanasius are specifically cited by Geisler and Nix as speaking against the Apocrypha. This is quite an interesting allegation because anyone familiar with the writings of these, and other Church Fathers, will know that precisely the opposite is true. [Webmaster Note: Actually, Origen was condemned as a heretic by the Holy Fathers of the Fifth Œcumenical Synod. This does not mean that he did not have many good things to say. Mr. Kalvesmaki's points still hold. I am merely correcting his statement that he is a Father of the Church.]

Origen, in his commentaries on the Gospels of St. John and St. Matthew, cites Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, additions to Daniel and Esdras I. Other Fathers before Origen, such as Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Clement of Alexandria and Irenaeus all quote from the Apocrypha. It is difficult to find a Father who does not quote the Apocrypha as Scripture.

St. Athanasius, in his festal letter of 367, lists the books of the Old Testament and includes in his canon those parts of the Apocrypha associated with Jeremiah and Daniel, while excluding the whole of Esther. He also commends other books of the Apocrypha as suitable for the instruction of new Christians, although he does not rate them as Scripture. St. Athanasius' intent in writing the letter was to exclude the apocryphal and spurious gospels of the second century and later, not the writings we know today as the Apocrypha.

Origen, the third century scholar and theologian who knew both Hebrew and Greek, is worth quoting on this subject:

[W]hen we notice [canonical differences between the Hebrew & LXX], we are [urged] to reject as spurious the copies in use in our Churches, and enjoin the brotherhood to put away the sacred books current among them, and to coax the Jews.... Are we to suppose that that Providence which in the sacred Scriptures has ministered to the edification of all the Churches of Christ, had no thought for those bought with a price, for whom Christ died...? In all these cases consider whether it would not be well to remember the words, "Thou shalt not remove the ancient landmarks which thy fathers have set." (Ep Afr 4,5)

...of the testimony of Luther & the Reformers

It is true that the Reformers generally subscribed to the Hebrew canon. And yet even then they were not hostile towards the Apocrypha. Luther included them in his translation of the Bible as being helpful to read. The original translation of the King James Version included the Apocrypha and was included in subsequent printings until the 19th century. According to the Book of Common Prayer it was them that "the [English] Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine..." (Art 6). What a long way we have come, where these books have fallen from honor to derision!

...of the innovation of the council of Trent

Although the council of Trent was late, it did not mark a change in the canon, but rather reflected the use of Scripture since the time of the Apostles. Generally we do not need to clarify that which is not under dispute. Up to then Rome had no need to define her canon. No church in the world, from Armenia to Ethiopia to Rome, had questioned the Apocrypha. Only Protestants, preferring their own wisdom to that of the rest of Christendom, prompted the canon to be defined.

...of the testimony of Philo, Josephus and the Council of Jamnia

As mentioned before, the testimony, or lack thereof, of these Jewish scholars carried little weight with Christians in the early centuries. Should it be any different for us? Were the sons of the Pharisees spiritually fit to establish the canon? In trying to redirect authority for the canon from the Greek to the Hebraic world, Geisler and Nix state:

"Palestine was the home of the Jewish canon, not Alexandria, Egypt. The great Greek learning center in Egypt was no authority in determining which books belonged in the Jewish Old Testament." (Geisler & Nix, 96)

Certainly Alexandria was not the "home" of the Jewish canon, but does the Old Testament belong to Jews or Christians? The question for us does not revolve around what was in the Jewish Old Testament but the Christian one! Who are the competent authorities on that question? If we respect the Jewish decision on the canon, should we then reconsider our position regarding the Messiah, the Sabbath and the Law?

...of St. Jerome's testimony

The opinions of one man do not form the mind of the Church. St. Augustine, his contemporary, begged to differ with him, as did previous and later Fathers.

...of the testimony of Reformation-period Roman Catholic scholars

Geisler and Nix cite Cardinals Cajetan and Ximenes as distinguishing the Apocrypha, in an effort to show that Rome was divided on the subject. This may result from our age-long misunderstanding of Catholicism. Through history Catholics have recognized differences within the Old Testament, not just of the Apocrypha, but of the Histories, Prophets and the Law. The Roman Catholic Church still recognizes that distinction by calling the apocryphal books deuterocanonical (second canon). Catholics distinguish, but do not separate, the Apocrypha, which perfectly accommodates the thought of the above Catholic Doctors.

Problems in the Apocrypha

There are passages of the Apocrypha which many Evangelicals find disturbing or problematic. And yet, if we are honest, those passages have their counterparts in the Old Testament.

For instance, much has been made of what, on the first reading, seems to be an occultic use of animal parts in the book of Tobit. But before rejecting this story, pause for a moment. Think of how Jacob bred his flock (Gen 30:25-43). Doesn't it seem that he used folk magic and dowsing techniques? If this story had not been included in the canon and we read it for the first time today, wouldn't we react just as awkwardly? Don't Jacob's actions seem to smack of God-sanctioned occultic practices just as much as Tobit's? Possibly our reaction against these kind of stories emanates not from their content but from being raised in a secular culture and worldview that scoffs the miraculous and God working through the physical.

There are unusual things waiting for new readers of the Apocrypha. Yet there is much that is already familiar to us as it is genuinely Christian. Some Evangelicals find that, after reading these books, they return to familiar Scriptures and discover a new depth and authenticity to them. Others begin to realize that the Old Testament canon is not a black and white issue.

All Scripture is Not Equal

Such a statement may come as a shock. If anything sounds like an attack on Scripture, this does.

Some background is necessary. In pre-Christian synagogue worship, when Scripture was read, the congregation responded differently to various sections of the Old Testament. The historical books "ranked" lowest, and above that came the Psalter and the Prophets. But when the Law was read, everyone in the synagogue stood. Here, for them, was the core of God's revelation and, above all other books, the Law of Moses merited full attention.

The same happened in early Christianity after the Apostles died. But instead of the Law, it was the Gospels which compelled the faithful to stand in respect. The teaching and words of Jesus, the New and Spiritual Law, were seen as the pinnacle of the revelation of Scripture. The early Christians' hermeneutic of the rest of the Bible began and ended with the words of Christ. The Gospels were the core of their canon. St. Paul was understood in the light of Jesus, not vice versa.

Is this ordering of Scripture so strange? We do it ourselves, although we do not readily admit it. If we consider all the sermons we have heard, cataloguing the references used, we will find that some books typically merit more thought and discourse than others. In many Protestant churches Romans and Galatians are focused upon while II Peter, James & Jude are not. In the Old Testament, the Psalms are read more frequently than Numbers. If any church or tradition really sought to cover Scripture equally they would have to slate four times more sermons on the Old Testament than on the New!

The Faith of the Septuagint

The Eastern Orthodox Church has been most faithful to the Apostles' Old Testament. They retain the LXX and generally base their translations of the Old Testament on it. Without needing objective proof for the veracity of this translation, they have simply held to what the Apostles gave them. Their approach to the canon has not been philosophical or deductive, but spiritual, trusting that God established and is now watching over the Church which He established.

In the West we have always laughed at this kind of childish faith, preferring that which is more concrete and objective. Yet there has been terrible vindication of Eastern simplicity this century. The Dead Sea Scrolls testify to the general reliability of the LXX. As the various passages of the Bible have been translated and published, scholars have realized that previous dismissal of the LXX has been premature. Passages from the Law and historical books have uncovered evidence for a separate Hebrew textual recension which underlies the translation of the LXX. More times than not the ancient manuscripts of Qumran agree with the Greek against the Massoretic Text.

It seems now that, to scholars engaged on this work in the future, Qumran has offered a new basis for a confidence in the LXX in at least the historical books, which should allow them to accept the better readings of that version almost as readily as if they were found in the Hebrew MT. In other words, each reading must in future be judged on its merits, not on any preconceived notion of the superiority of the Hebrew version, simply because it is Hebrew. (Allegro, 81)

Qumranic scholars have not submitted absolute vindication of one textual tradition over another but they have reopened the question of translation of the Old Testament. The answer to the direction of future translations, now, could be pivotally determined by theologians rather than textual scholars. Allegro, and others, argue for an eclectic translation of the Old Testament which would provoke all and satisfy none. However, in the future, we may find ourselves asking not, "Which version seems best?" but, "Which version best reflects Christ?" For the answer to the latter the LXX has been long in waiting.

Rethinking the Old Testament

Most Evangelical arguments for the Old Testament canon are, at best, ad hoc. Our leaders and teachers paint a simple, pristine picture of the transmission of Scripture, as if the canon was all but leather-bound and cross-referenced. "This canon is true because it is self-evident, internally consistent and all sensible early testimony agrees with us," goes the typical argument. And when, in opening the record of history, we find this to be not the case, we add a long string of 'but's and 'except's. This does not go very far. With such an approach to the Scriptures, trying to take them out of their place in history, is it any wonder why so many Bible-believing Christians have lost their faith to Liberals, who are willing to deal more thoroughly with the historical record?

What Can We Learn?

  • We Evangelicals need a strong dose of theological humility. When we examine history it does not always match our expectations or our experience. We preach often on the importance of confessing our personal sins and errors, but rarely apply this principle to our corporate spiritual walk with other churches and other communions. Does humility only apply to the individual, or also to entire bodies?
  • Some of us, myself included, have denied the name Christian to churches which have beliefs and practices which are closer to the Fathers who helped give us the canon. Possibly it is time to begin to treat with respect those churches which have retained the Apocrypha simply in their effort to be faithful to what the Apostles handed to them.
  • Silence and quietness is in order. As Evangelicals we often act from excessive and ignorant zeal. Might it not be time to stop, pause, and learn? It would do us no harm to prayerfully read the Fathers, some of whom were closer to Jesus and the Apostles in time, language, culture and doctrine.
  • Possibly we need to listen to what the Catholics and Orthodox say to us before we judge them. Most of what we learn about these ancient bodies come from Protestant sources. We should trust them to tell their own story.

As Jesus says, "Recognize what is in your sight, and that which is hidden from you will become plain to you." (Gospel of Thomas 5)

What? Jesus never said that!

How do you know? Who says the Gospel of Thomas should not be in the New Testament? We will look at the answer to this, and examine the canon of the New Testament in our next essay, "Do Not Add to His Words."


John Allegro, The Dead Sea Scrolls: A Reappraisal. 1956 (London: Penguin, 1980, 2nd ed.)

The Book of Common Prayer. (London: University Press, Cambridge)

Lancelot C. L. Brenton, ed. The Septuagint with Apocrypha: Greek and English. 1851. (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1992)

Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix., From God to Us: How we Got our Bible, (Chicago: Moody Press, 1974)

Edgar J. Goodspeed, The Story of the Apocrypha, (Chicago: University of Chicago 1939)

Roberts, Alexander and James Donaldson, eds. Ante-Nicene Fathers. 1885. (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1994)

All Bible quotations, except Apocryphal, which come from the New American Bible, are taken from the New American Standard Bible.