# Does the Old Testament count as part of "the Bible"? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [January 29, 2012, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-old-testament-count-as-part-of-the-bible/611089 "2012-01-29T16:51:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![FriarTed](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/friarted/32/1052_2.png) [@FriarTed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FriarTed)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2012, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-old-testament-count-as-part-of-the-bible/611089/21 "2012-01-30T19:01:05Z")
If you went into any store & asked for a Bible, you would be shown volumes which included OT & NT unless it was a Jewish bookstore, then only the “OT”. ---
**Author:** ![Si\_Amigo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/si_amigo/32/2877_2.png) [@Si\_Amigo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Si_Amigo)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2012, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-old-testament-count-as-part-of-the-bible/611089/22 "2012-01-30T19:08:09Z")
So do mormon bookstores sell Bibles with OT, NT and BoM all inclusive. And please no political commentary, just a yes or no will do. ---
**Author:** ![ThisOneGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c0e974/32.png) [@ThisOneGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ThisOneGuy)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2012, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-old-testament-count-as-part-of-the-bible/611089/23 "2012-01-30T19:38:00Z")
> [@Si\_Amigo](#): > > So do mormon bookstores sell Bibles with OT, NT and BoM all inclusive. And please no political commentary, just a yes or no will do. Yes, including also the D&C (Doctrine and Covenants) and Pearl of Great Price all bound together with ample cross references from each to all the others. ---
**Author:** ![Si\_Amigo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/si_amigo/32/2877_2.png) [@Si\_Amigo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Si_Amigo)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2012, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-old-testament-count-as-part-of-the-bible/611089/24 "2012-01-30T20:19:25Z")
> [@ThisOneGuy](#): > > Yes, including also the D&C (Doctrine and Covenants) and Pearl of Great Price all bound together with ample cross references from each to all the others. Thanks, so this leads to a follow up. What is the Mormon stance on the OT as related to the NT? Historical reference like some others seem to treat it or the binding word of God. I was always taught the OT was God’s covenant with the Jews and the NT was his covenant with the everyone else. ---
**Author:** ![Rhodes](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rhodes/32/273_2.png) [@Rhodes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhodes)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2012, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-old-testament-count-as-part-of-the-bible/611089/25 "2012-01-30T20:51:38Z")
> [@Si\_Amigo](#): > > Thanks, so this leads to a follow up. What is the Mormon stance on the OT as related to the NT? Historical reference like some others seem to treat it or the binding word of God. I was always taught the OT was God’s covenant with the Jews and the NT was his covenant with the everyone else. Pretty much that it is “God’s covenant with the Jews.” The Ten Commandments are still considered commandments (except where they’re not; they celebrate the sabbath on the first day of the week and they are very proud of their graven image of Jehovah at the Temple Square visitors’ center). The history is taught as literal (except where it’s not; the Garden of Eden story, for example, is literal except the rib and the serpent). The sacrifices, punishments, and many of the prohibitions are considered obsolete or “fulfilled” with Jesus’s final sacrifice and teachings. ---
**Author:** ![IvoryTowerDenizen](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ivorytowerdenizen/32/17937_2.png) [@IvoryTowerDenizen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IvoryTowerDenizen)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2012, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-old-testament-count-as-part-of-the-bible/611089/26 "2012-01-30T23:26:48Z")
> [@FriarTed](#): > > If you went into any store & asked for a Bible, you would be shown volumes which included OT & NT unless it was a Jewish bookstore, then only the “OT”. Which, of course, we’d never call the Old Testament. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![VOW](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/vow/32/3043_2.png) [@VOW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VOW)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2012, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-old-testament-count-as-part-of-the-bible/611089/27 "2012-01-30T23:27:43Z")
If you want to get really TECHNICAL, the Bible (Old and New Testaments) was assembled by the Early Church Fathers in +/- 400 CE. (or AD if you prefer) It was at this time all of the writings of the Christian church were gathered, and the ECF, by the power of the Holy Spirit, discerned which were Scriptural and which were not. The books specifically excluded are the ones you see floating around today as the so-called “lost” books of the Bible. They weren’t lost. They were never invited to play. The Old Testament at that time included the deuterocanonical books. These books were considered to be Scripture by the Christian Church for over a thousand years. St Augustine lists all the books of the Old and New Testaments in his writings. In the 1500s, Martin Luther had his snit with the Catholic Church. Part of his argument was over the sale of indulgences. The bigger part of his battle had to do with the Bible. Luther wanted to do his very own German translation. All by himself. This was contrary to Church SOP. Translations were done by committee, to avoid a translation that would veer away from the original. It should be noted here that the argument was NOT over Luther translating it into German. Common vernacular translations had been done for many years. The whole idea of the Catholic Church wanting to “keep the Bible away from the people” is baloney: Bibles were far too expensive for most people to own, and the majority of the population was illiterate. ANYWAY, Luther wanted to do a solo job, and the Church put a kibosh on that. He felt he had a better understanding of the Bible that anyone else, particularly the Pauline epistles. He was already espousing his belief of “sola fide” or “by faith alone,” and he wanted to make sure his translation included JUST that. As we all know, Luther had his break from the Catholic Church, and one of the first things he did was to begin his own translation. In doing so, he omitted the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament, because of their implication of Purgatory. He also wanted to do some editing of the New Testament, to remove or modify books that didn’t QUITE fit into his “Sola Scripura, Sola Fide” beliefs. (rather tidy, preach about Scripture Alone, but make sure you tailor the Scripture…) Most Protestant Bibles will not include the deuterocanonical books. Some may, but they will be in a separate section, “The Apocrypha.” So, if you are going to ask about Christians and the Old Testament, you need to ask about which books of the Old Testament are included. ~VOW ---
**Author:** ![aceplace57](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aceplace57/32/3500_2.png) [@aceplace57](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aceplace57)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2012, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-old-testament-count-as-part-of-the-bible/611089/28 "2012-01-30T23:55:27Z")
My Sunday school certainly teaches the old testament to kids. Daniel in the lions den, David and Goliath, Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego in the furnace and more. There’s posters of these characters on the bulletin board and illustrations in the Sunday school books. That’s a big part of kids Sunday school. ---
**Author:** ![tellyworth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/977dab/32.png) [@tellyworth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tellyworth)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2012, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-old-testament-count-as-part-of-the-bible/611089/29 "2012-01-30T23:59:49Z")
Oh sure. I just meant it’d be easy for someone to get a bit sloppy with their language and say “not part of the Bible” when they really mean “not a part of the Bible we consider binding”. ---
**Author:** ![constanze](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f9ae1b/32.png) [@constanze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/constanze)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2012, 10:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-old-testament-count-as-part-of-the-bible/611089/30 "2012-01-31T10:35:53Z")
> [@VOW](#): > > In the 1500s, Martin Luther had his snit with the Catholic Church. Part of his argument was over the sale of indulgences. The bigger part of his battle had to do with the Bible. > > Luther wanted to do his very own German translation. All by himself. This was contrary to Church SOP. Translations were done by committee, to avoid a translation that would veer away from the original. It should be noted here that the argument was NOT over Luther translating it into German. Common vernacular translations had been done for many years. The whole idea of the Catholic Church wanting to “keep the Bible away from the people” is baloney: Bibles were far too expensive for most people to own, and the majority of the population was illiterate. > > ANYWAY, Luther wanted to do a solo job, and the Church put a kibosh on that. He felt he had a better understanding of the Bible that anyone else, particularly the Pauline epistles. He was already espousing his belief of “sola fide” or “by faith alone,” and he wanted to make sure his translation included JUST that. > > As we all know, Luther had his break from the Catholic Church, and one of the first things he did was to begin his own translation. In doing so, he omitted the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament, because of their implication of Purgatory. He also wanted to do some editing of the New Testament, to remove or modify books that didn’t QUITE fit into his “Sola Scripura, Sola Fide” beliefs. (rather tidy, preach about Scripture Alone, but make sure you tailor the Scripture…) > > Most Protestant Bibles will not include the deuterocanonical books. Some may, but they will be in a separate section, “The Apocrypha.” > ~VOW This is not correct at all. 1. Martin Luther’s main problem was the whole idea of indulgences and the corruption in the Catholic church. His epiphany of “sola fide” being enough and so not depending on the priests of the Catholic Church, along with his unsuccesful call for reforms by the Church, lead to the break. 2. Luther didn’t modify the books to fit his view. He [did arrange the order](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luther_Bible)of the NT books differently, and the OT books he had doubts about he still included as the apocrypha. 3. The Catholic Church didn’t forbid translations by single persons but allow them by comitee. They [generally forbade laypeople](http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibelverbot) to read the Bible without “proper instruction” and also several times forbade translation at all. Synod of Toulouse, 1229: > [@](#): > > ``` > „Prohibemus etiam, ne libros veteris testamenti aut novi laici permittantur habere; nisi forte psalterium vel breviarium pro divinis officiis aut horas beatae Mariae aliquis ex devotione habere velit. Sed ne praemissos libros habeant in vulgari translatos, archissime inhibemus.“ > > „Wir verbieten auch den Laien den Besitz von Büchern des Alten oder des Neuen Testaments, es sei denn einer möchte gerne ein Psalterium oder ein Brevier für das Heilige Officium oder das Stundengebet der Seligen Maria zur Andacht haben. Aber dass sie die vorgenannten Bücher in einer volkssprachlichen Übersetzung besitzen dürfen, das verbieten wir aufs Grundsätzlichste.“ > > ``` > > _We also forbid laypeople to own books of the old or the new testament, unless one of them wants to have a psalter or a breviary for the holy officium or the hourly prayers of the blessed Mary for praying. But that they own the earlier mentioned books in a translation into a popular language, that we forbid generally_ and later > [@](#): > > Unter Isabella I. von Kastilien und ihrem Mann Ferdinand II. (Regentschaften 1474–1516) wird das Verbot von Bibeln in der Volkssprache spanisches Staatsgesetz. Die von ihnen eingeführte Inquisition ordnet 1497, fünf Jahre nach Vertreibung der Juden aus Spanien, die Vernichtung aller hebräischen Bücher und aller volkssprachlichen Bibeln an. Im Jahr darauf wird als Begründung nachgereicht, es sei unmöglich, die Bibel in eine moderne Sprache zu übersetzen, ohne Irrtümer zu begehen, die Ungelehrte und insbesondere Neubekehrte in Glaubenszweifeln stürzen könnten.[13] > > - Under Isabella I of Castilia and her husband Ferdinand II (regency 1474-1516) the prohibition of Bibles in popular language becomes spanic state law. The inquisition, introduced by them, declares 1497, five years after the expulsion of Jews out of Spain, the desctruction of all hebrew books and all Bibles in the popular language. In the following year the reason is added, that it is impossible to translate the Bibel into a modern language without committing mistakes which could cause newly converted and uneducated to doubt the faith.\* While it is true that before Gutenberg, books in general were expensive and that most laypeople couldn’t read, that was not the reason that the Church gave, or why the RCC continued banning Bibles in the popular language. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2012, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-old-testament-count-as-part-of-the-bible/611089/31 "2012-01-31T20:37:57Z")
Episcopalian here. The OT and the NT make up the Bible. I know of no Christians who say otherwise (although I guess they’re out there). ---
**Author:** ![FriarTed](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/friarted/32/1052_2.png) [@FriarTed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FriarTed)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2012, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-old-testament-count-as-part-of-the-bible/611089/32 "2012-01-31T21:03:50Z")
> [@IvoryTowerDenizen](#): > > Which, of course, we’d never call the Old Testament. > > 🙂 Which is why I put it there in quotation marks. The copies I have are either called The Holy Scriptures or The Tanakh. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2012, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-old-testament-count-as-part-of-the-bible/611089/33 "2012-01-31T21:06:42Z")
“I think they should call them the Old Testament and the More Recent Testament.” - Steven Wright ---
**Author:** ![VOW](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/vow/32/3043_2.png) [@VOW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VOW)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2012, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-old-testament-count-as-part-of-the-bible/611089/34 "2012-01-31T21:37:14Z")
I mentioned Luther had a problem with the sale of indulgences. Whether it was his “main” problem with the Church heirarchy is debatable. He truly butted heads over his authority to translate the Bible into German. He was the one who excluded the Apocrypha, setting it apart from the body of Scripture. And this was the beginning of the Protestant POV to completely eliminate it from the Old Testament. Luther wanted to remove completely some books of the New Testament. Sepcifically, he wanted the book of James GONE, because of the verse “faith without works is dead.” That completely contradicted his belief of Sola Fide. He also put a higher value on the Pauline epistles than even the Gospels at times, and he wanted to translate Paul into saying “faith alone.” While the indulgence business may have been Luther’s first real point of conflict with Rome, his understanding of man’s relationship with God eventually caused his eventual break from the Church. ~VOW ---
**Author:** ![I\_Know\_Nothing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/f04885/32.png) [@I\_Know\_Nothing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_Know_Nothing)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2012, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-old-testament-count-as-part-of-the-bible/611089/35 "2012-01-31T22:12:12Z")
> [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](#): > > “I think they should call them the Old Testament and the More Recent Testament.” - Steven Wright I’d go for “Bible” and “appendix” ---
**Author:** ![ZenBeam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/3ab097/32.png) [@ZenBeam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZenBeam)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2012, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-old-testament-count-as-part-of-the-bible/611089/36 "2012-01-31T22:34:21Z")
> [@brocks](#): > > Christians are all over the map on this. Some want the Ten Commandments posted in schools and courthouses; others, including some I’ve debated here, are quick to say that the Hebrew Bible ( **“Old Testament” is at best condescending to Jews** ) […] Is this generally accepted? Can any other knowledgeable people confirm or deny? My first thought was that “Hebrew Bible” would be more condescending than “Old Testament”, but I’m not one to have much of a clue. I looked at the Wikipedia [Hebrew Bible](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_Bible) page, but couldn’t really tell. This sentence, for example, > [@](#): > > It is widely used in academic writing and interfaith discussion in relatively neutral contexts meant to include dialogue among all religious traditions, but not widely in the inner discourse of the religions which use its text. doesn’t make it sound like Jews are really on board with this. ---
**Author:** ![Biffy\_the\_Elephant\_Shrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e47c2d/32.png) [@Biffy\_the\_Elephant\_Shrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biffy_the_Elephant_Shrew)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2012, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-old-testament-count-as-part-of-the-bible/611089/37 "2012-01-31T22:39:33Z")
> [@tellyworth](#): > > Sounds like your friend could be referring to [supersessionism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersessionism) - basically, the question of which bits of the OT are still considered binding. I thought that was the belief that [Al Kooper](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Session) is God. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2012, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-old-testament-count-as-part-of-the-bible/611089/38 "2012-01-31T22:41:48Z")
> [@ZenBeam](#): > > Is this generally accepted? Can any other knowledgeable people confirm or deny? My first thought was that “Hebrew Bible” would be more condescending than “Old Testament”, but I’m not one to have much of a clue. I looked at the Wikipedia [Hebrew Bible](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_Bible) page, but couldn’t really tell. This sentence, for example, > doesn’t make it sound like Jews are really on board with this. Jews don’t use the word “bible”. It’s “torah”. Or “pentateuch”. Or “humash”. ---
**Author:** ![IvoryTowerDenizen](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ivorytowerdenizen/32/17937_2.png) [@IvoryTowerDenizen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IvoryTowerDenizen)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2012, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-old-testament-count-as-part-of-the-bible/611089/39 "2012-01-31T22:56:53Z")
It’s not the Old Testament since we don’t recognize the New one. It’s the Torah. The Tanakh works too, though it includes additional material. ---
**Author:** ![Skammer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skammer/32/143_2.png) [@Skammer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skammer)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2012, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-old-testament-count-as-part-of-the-bible/611089/40 "2012-01-31T22:57:35Z")
> [@ZenBeam](#): > > Is this generally accepted? Can any other knowledgeable people confirm or deny? My first thought was that “Hebrew Bible” would be more condescending than “Old Testament”, but I’m not one to have much of a clue. I looked at the Wikipedia [Hebrew Bible](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_Bible) page, but couldn’t really tell. This sentence, for example, > doesn’t make it sound like Jews are really on board with this. I think that cite makes it pretty clear that within their own communities, the Jews refer to it as Torah and the Christians refer to it as the Old Testament. In interfaith dialogue, to avoid confusion (and possible offense) it’s often referred to as the Hebrew Bible. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-old-testament-count-as-part-of-the-bible/611089.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-old-testament-count-as-part-of-the-bible/611089.md?page=3)